Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

AFD and judges appointed by Joe Biden

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm noticing an interesting trend here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. There are a lot of bio AFDs cropping up from ediror Let'srun, who has been editing since July 2022. Haven't checked them all, but they seem to be bios of people (mostly judges) appointed by Joe Biden. The only one I replied to was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochelle Mercedes Garza. This user's first edit was to request deletion of Judge William Pocan. There does seem to be an agenda here on their editing history. — Maile (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I am just following WP:USCJN for the judge articles I am proposing for deletion, which notes that "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable." In addition, nominees which failed to receive a vote are also not notable on its own per WP:USCJN. If you looked more closely, you will see I am simply trying to assist in the AfD of biographies for judicial which were often created WP:TOOSOON or politicians which failed WP:POLITICIAN. I have no agenda besides wanting to improve the standards of wikipedia, particularly for judges and politicians. Let'srun (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Your track record with the community is not good. AFAICT, not one of your AfDs resulted in deletion (I'm going by the fact that you have no deleted edits, which you would had any article been deleted).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

But... none of them have been closed, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops, thanks, I didn't realize all of them were started in the last few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This user made 11 sporadic edits in 2022, then stopped editing. Then they reappeared yesterday, making 132 edits since then, mostly relating to PRODs and AFDs. In other words, this seems to be a new user who's jumping straight into article deletion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Just as a note on the original concern about possible POV pushing: the fact the AfD'd judgeship nominees are all Biden nominees is probably just coincident to the fact probably all current nominees are Biden nominees. Valereee (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue I'm seeing is Let'srun seems to assume that NPOL about nominees is the only notability standard utilized, despite the individuals having notable careers as judges (and other activities) prior to their nomination for federal positions. There seems to be no attempt to determine GNG or notability about the individuals in themselves and several of them are very, very apparently notable under other grounds. Silverseren^C 22:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:GNG, and it fails in the articles I have proposed to delete. Many of them have little in the way of secondary sources as well. Let'srun (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you aware of the difference between an unendorsed wikiproject standard like WP:USCJN and a notability guideline like Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I've pointed out that many of the articles fail notability and have been created WP:TOOSOON, before the subject has been notable or because the subject was anticipated to become notable based on WP:CRYSTAL. Let'srun (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

And can you tell me what WP:TOOSOON is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Creating articles before subjects are actually notable. This is not a crystal ball, and the assumption that stuff will eventually happen doesn't mean it will. Let'srun (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Haven't looked to see if there's POV afoot, but just some advice that applies in any case: Let'srun, in case you haven't noticed, mass-nominating for deletion, mass-creation, mass-anything attracts a lot of scrutiny around here. :) Especially if it's not an area you have a lot of experience in, it's usually a good idea to do a couple and see how it goes before doing more. Not a hard rule -- just best practice. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I hear you! Let'srun (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That, and the fact that most (but not all) of what you have put up for deletion contains this wording, "President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate ... " — Maile (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no political agenda, if that is what you are trying to say. I've nominated Trump and Obama nominees for deletion due to failing in the same areas. Let'srun (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• There has been a lot of disruption around judges. The history/Talk of Tiffany Cartwright and related deletion discussions are one that was on my watchlist. Judges are partisan appointments and people passionate about judges are well, passionate, which sometimes leads to issues following N:POL,USCJN, etc. If someone who isn't elected isn't necessary notable,the parallel that a judge whose appointment wasn't confirmed wasn't either. Like everything else the last decade or so, it's an ideological war, not a policy one. I don't know what the answer is, but a mass nom isn't it, unfortunately, but nor is copy pasting the same IAR rationale without explaining why it's a valid IAR at AfD and every judge related discussion. Get the policy changed if you find it wrong. That's not happening on one specific article/AfD, but folks don't want to go that path either. Star Mississippi 23:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree 100%. That is why I only nominated those I felt were WP:TOOSOON based on the Tiffany Cartwright precedent. Let'srun (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I do regret not making it more clear the individual cases but in many of them they are pretty much the same with few to no secondary sources and little to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your first edits were related to article deletions. This is unusual. Did you previously edit as an IP or did you have a previous account you’ve discarded? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:597:65ED:46F6:5C4A (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have made edits before with a couple of IPs. Let'srun (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  The Tiffany Cartwright fiasco was due to the activism of one editor, namely yourself, over the opposition of virtually everyone who has ever edited a law-related article. It shouldn't be used as precedent for anything. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem with using the Tiffany Cartwright precedent is that doesn't support the deletion or moving to draft. Tiffany Cartwright's page has been put back into main space & guess what... She has NOT been confirmed yet. The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judge's directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. There simply is no way a person will be nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a notable lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. MIAJudges (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Cloture (yes, not a RS but no one is debating this fact) has been invoked. Moving it back to draft, which you know I have supported in the past, is process wonkery when it will toll literally this week and she would be moved. That's why I didn't move it back or start another AfD. By the time either was resolved, she'd be confirmed. Hell she probably would have been confirmed if not for the mess around Dianne Feinstein and judiciary, I think we all know that. Cartwright is an example of current handling of nominees despite several editors thinking that isn't the case, or that it's political. You were offered the path to having that reviewed and you opted not to pursue it. I think unfortunately that means this is going to be a game of whack a mole for judges in limbo. Star Mississippi 00:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Looking over some of those AfDs (and self-disclosing as an unrepentant liberal), I'm more concerned about those waves of bullshit cut-and-paste Keep votes, often on shaky or no legitimate grounds, than I am about the noms. Let's take MIAJudges's favorite: "Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone." Perhaps I am having a senior moment, and have missed the guideline which explicitly states so; MIAJudges, if you would be kind enough to post a link to it, please? Then we have User:Snickers2686 repeatedly using "Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason" (an essay, to save people from clicking) as the sum total of repeated cut-and-paste responses.

  There are people tossing in IAR, and people claiming that membership on a federal commission constitutes prima facie notability, and people saying that the nomination process is a formality and the judges will soon be appointed (this with something like 1500 confirmation-required posts being held up) ... and what's glaringly missing from the cavalcade in the bulk of these AfDs are Keep votes citing actual notability guidelines. Since several people here have quizzed Let'srun on their command of pertinent procedural and notability rules, perhaps we can turn our attention to quizzing the Keep proponents as to theirs. Honestly, if vague essays are going to be legitimate grounds to advocate Keep or Delete, I might as well write WP:BECAUSEIFEELLIKEIT and use it for every one of my AfD votes going forward, and saving me the trouble of actually researching an AfD on its merits. It'll be just as thoughtful and legitimate. Ravenswing 01:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight, the nominator can use the same criteria for multiple/mass nominations and that's okay, but I can't use the same response for 'Keep'? How does that make sense? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  When your !vote has no basis in policy, no you can't - to argue WP:IAR as you are functionally doing you need to provide a justification for why the rules don't and can't apply here, and a copy-paste vote of "Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason" does not meet that standard. I would even consider such copy-paste votes to be disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight, Snickers2686, because demonstrably you exercised as little thought in this response as in your cut-and-paste flurry: did you notice that in the sixteen AfDs in question, Let'srun had identical wording in exactly two of them? No. I don't suppose you did notice. Beyond that, in each and every one of those sixteen, they expounded a policy-based rationale for the nomination. Each and every time you responded to one of them, you didn't. You are showing us as much contempt with responses like those as you did in the AfDs. Ravenswing 05:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Based on your talk page, it looks like quite a few have contempt for you as it is so... Snickers2686 (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Replies like these are neither acceptable nor productive; please strike it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi

  At no point in the Tiffany Cartwright deletion discussion last year was cloture being invoked ever used as a metric to make her notable. As a matter of fact, the fact that she has had her page moved back before she is confirmed only further shows my initial point last year when I said she was notable. It seems we are moving the goal post (Not you per say, just in general) to justify the present-day actions. When the initial deletion request occurred, we tried to explain she had a lengthy career even before the president nominated her. Her page has numerous references from the media & we were told that wasn't enough. I personally added three more & was told the three wasn't specifically about her so that didn't count. Then I was told only her confirmation will make her notable. The senate is out on recess next week & there are three other nominees that have cloture invoked before her, so she won't be confirmed until near the end of the week after next but somehow now a cloture vote makes her more notable than the president of the United States nominating her in the first place.

  As for I was "offered the path to having that reviewed and you opted not to pursue it", that simply is not true. I tried to prevent her page from being moved & after it was, I put in another request to have the decision reversed. It was unsuccessful because once again I was told she had to be confirmed. It seems as though that was not the case now. I was told she could withdraw, the president can rescind his nomination, or she could die before being confirmed so we must wait. Can those things still not happen between today & two weeks from now when she is ultimately confirmed?

  Let's be honest, her page should have never been allowed to be moved in the first place. Wikipedia needs to have some clearer guidance so users like @Let'srun can't come along & use Wikipedia lingo to pull pages down that thousands of people come to Wikipedia for. The idea that a lawyer who has had a career's worth of media articles written about them, then nominated by the president & then have a senate judiciary committee hearing not being notable is almost as unbelievable as Tiffany Cartwright is somehow notable today but wasn't last week when the only thing that has change is a cloture motion has been sent to the senate floor desk. And that is on top of out of over 100 Biden nominees at that time last year, she was the ONLY one who somehow wasn't notable. Once again, I know you were on my side of thinking last year so not frustrated at you. I'm frustrated we have to spend time yet again defending something that should be obvious because one user wants to make a point.

  MIAJudges (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges: While I can't speak for Star Mississippi, it seems fairly obvious to me someone who is not an American so frankly doesn't know that much about how the process works, that what they are saying is that the article was only moved back to main space about two days ago without any form of discussion and based on a statement that goes directly against the guidelines and AFD [1] by User:Frenzie23. However despite this, because the judge has reached a stage of the process where their nomination is going to be confirmed very very soon, there is no point fighting this. Any attempt to reverse it other than simply moving it back without discussion is likely to take longer to resolve than the for this nomination to be confirmed. Again I don't know that much about US federal judgeship nominations and politics but from what I do know this seems an entirely reasonable assessment of the situation. It reflects the fact that Star Mississippi, unlike the editor who moved the article back to main space, understands that Wikipedia operates by consensus and discussion and so an editor cannot simply force their way through unilaterally. As for Frenzie23, while their actions are not good, as a single instance no one is going to support sanction against them based on this single misstep so we are where we are. It's better to discuss the general problem rather than concentrate on one specific action by one editor. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh no problem. We welcome users from all across the globe… Lol

  So to shed more light, a cloture motion being sent to the senate desk means these are the next items the senate will work on. There were three other nominees schemed before her & A vote hasn’t even been scheduled for Tiffany Cartwright, plus that’s on top of the senate being on vacation for two weeks. It took less than two weeks to get her page taken down in the first place. So the idea that somebody doesn’t have enough time to take her page down now isn’t really a sufficient argument if you’re of the mindset that she isn’t notable until she’s confirmed. And that’s on top of even when she finally gets a cloture vote, she will need another confirmation vote to actually be confirmed & theres no guarantee either will happen.

  Don’t get me wrong, I am in any way arguing that her page should be taken down again. I am just pointing out the inconsistencies with her page being taken down to show how unjust these results are now.

  Myself as well as many other users are VERY passionate about the judiciary here. We don’t want to see some user come along & use a loophole to start getting pages taken down, especially when the reasoning is neither in line with Wikipedia precedent or the general consensus.

  MIAJudges (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges: if you think Star Mississippi is wrong and it's likely to take more than 2 weeks for the confirmation to happen then you're welcome to start the process to reverse the move. And there is no loophole. These articles should not exist unless there is evidence they meet GNG or some other guideline. If you don't accept that then you need to refrain from creating them, or participating in any AFD etc. If you don't accept than then we will topic ban you and any more productive contributions you can make to improve our coverage of the judiciary in areas where notability is clear will be lost. It's your choice Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wait a minute. You’re threatening to ban me? On what basis? I am a prolific Wikipedia user that is participating in the conversation. Each time I participate I am including precedent & factual information to back up what I am saying. I have not used any foul language, I have assumed good faith in all users even when they have a difference of opinion & I have listened to every view point. And the result is that is a threat to ban me???

  MIAJudges (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges, you seem to be arguing policy you don't fully understand, and you seem to believe your understanding of it is the correct understanding, and you keep insisting so. At some point that becomes disruptive all by itself.

  Here for instance you argued there is "no precedent" for deletion. What policy do you believe you are referring to?

  When multiple other editors who are much more experienced than you are telling you you are misunderstanding policy, which is what's happening here, you should go investigate further. You say you are listening, but you aren't. The fact you're being civil isn't enough. Valereee (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is not that I am not understanding what is being said, it is that I don’t agree with what some are saying. I don’t agree because of both precedent & inconsistencies in the arguments being made. I didn’t know simply articulating a different view point is being “ disruptive all by itself”. As for other users being “ much more experienced than” me, does that mean I am not entitled to an opinion? I thought that’s what the AFD was for. I appreciate the advice that I “should go investigate further”. I have, which is why I am even more confused as to how there seems to be a change in policy & approach to this subject. As for me or listening, that is exactly what I have done. The fact that I still do not agree with a persons opinion because of both inconsistencies in the argument & precedent shouldn’t mean you state I am not listening. If I were to agree with you does that now mean I am all of a sudden listening now?

  But this AFD is not about me so I don’t want to take up all of the oxygen in the conversation. I just want those users who apparently are much more experienced than me to know I appreciate all views even if some do not reciprocate.

  Thank you all MIAJudges (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's fine to disagree. But arguing your opinion over and over again when it's clear your opinion is not the consensus opinion can be considered disruptive. Valereee (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, @Nil Einne that's 90% of my motivation. The other 10% is this article/Talk page/deletion discussions have been exhausting. Folks want to create pages on judges in contravention of current practice/guidelines, but when the article is deleted and that deletion is endorsed, it's either sexism or politics. @Frenzie23 moved it over protection and consensus, but I felt it was no longer worth the argument since, apparently, I misunderstood what cloture would mean for her nomination. It's moot as @Curbon7 has already done so, but I'm not sure I'd have moved it back this morning if they hadn't as it's exhausting. @MIAJudges I stand by what I have said throughout out conversations on Cartwright, she is not currently notable. If those of you working on judge's articles want to change the guidelines, start the process. Don't assume bad faith on those of us applying consensus. Star Mississippi 12:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the start the process suggestion. I will look into that. For the record, I have never accused any users of sexism or politics. Other users have & I do not believe any have been threatened to be locked out if the AFD like apparently I have been by another user, but that’s ok. I don’t believe in making accusations unless it is warranted. I assume good faith “I literally wrote that in one of my replies above”.

  Thanks again & have a great day

  MIAJudges (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  oops missed this on first load. @MIAJudges we've had nothing but respectful conversations, for which I thank you, and I expect we will even though I think you have a flawed understanding of process. I'm frustrated we have to spend time yet again defending something that should be obvious because one user wants to make a point. No one is making a point. Cartwright was decided by consensus not to be notable, and you & @Snickers2686 opted not to follow the route to get the guidelines considered for revision. That's well within you're right as we're all volunteers. I closed the decision that reflected consensus which is why I was "allowed" to move it. You seemed to be OK with that because you didn't report me here or elsewhere for doing something I wasn't "allowed" to. Multiple folks have weighed in at the AfD/DRV and on the Talk. I don't know them all but it's fair to say we're all looking at it from the guidelines, not because we have a personal opinion on Cartwright's merits. Speaking of last fall when we were discussing, not this current batch of noms, if others should also have been draftified, AfD was there for you or anyone else as a tool. It's the one @Let'srun pursued now.

  These nominees could exist in draft space and be moved on confirmation. While draft space isn't mandatory for anyone but those with fewer than ten edits, it's a worthwhile tool to work on an article for whom notability isn't established but you expect will be in a near future. Star Mississippi 12:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing

  @Let'srun is simply copy & pasting the same rationale for is multiple mass deletion request. I am responding in kind. As for your quiz, I will be happy to answer that. No, vague essays would not be acceptable for notability. But a career lawyer who has been nominated by the leader of the executive branch for a lifetime appointment to a co-equal branch is not a vague essay. Each nominee is covered in multiple media publications across the country the same day they are nominated so they become notable even if they weren't previously.

  MIAJudges (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, let me be less oblique about it. To wit: being a career lawyer meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia, and being nominated by the President to a government post meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia, and being nominated for a judgeship meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia ... and either you know that already and are being disingenuous in your votes, or you didn't know that, in which case you really don't have any business participating in AfDs at all. Deletion discussions revolve around whether a subject does, or does not, meet the extant notability criteria, not the ones that individual editors make up in their own heads. Ravenswing 05:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  You’re wrong using any Wikipedia precedent. Each & every single nominee to be a federal judge has never had their Wikipedia page taken down or moved except one. And that one is Tiffany Cartwright who has not been confirmed yet but even her page has been reinstated. There is literally no history, no precedent or no consensus to back up what you are advocating. And I believe I have every right to be participating in AfDs. I do not agree with what you are advocating but would never question your ability to participate in the discussion.

  MIAJudges (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Precedent" changes all the time on Wikipedia; you don't see WP:PORNBIO still up, after all, or participation standards for sports figures, or an automatic presumption that high schools are notable. This is why we deliberately do not cite "precedent" as a valid ground to keep. Beyond that, I'm curious: you have been on Wikipedia for a little over a year, and as far as I can see you have participated in precisely two AfDs before yesterday: one last month, and the original Cartwright AfD last year. What is your basis for your assertion that no nominee for a judgeship has ever had an article deleted? I've been on Wikipedia for nineteen years and have participated in many hundreds of AfDs, and I wouldn't dare to make such a claim one way or another. Ravenswing 07:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your 19 years of service. This is not my only Wikipedia account. I use this one specifically for the judiciary. I’ve been on Wikipedia many more years prior but I would never throw my Wikipedia seniority around from my other account to try & justify that makes my point any more or less valid than other users. We have a difference of opinion, it happens. The only difference is I have never threatened to ban, block or discredit another users opinion like some on this thread apparently does. I have cited my reasoning for my opinion. It must have some validity to it because I see the Tiffany Cartwright page has been pulled down again which indicates me using that as justification to not pulling the other pages down struck a cord.

  Look, as I wrote above this thread is not about me. I certainly didn’t want it to turn into people going to my page to see how long I’ve been on Wikipedia or how many ADF’s I have participated in (Especially when the investigation leads to incorrect data & you could have just asked me in the first place). I respect everybody’s opinion. I gave me reasoning (Once) here as to why I think the pages should remain up. I was name checked in replies so I replied with my opinion. I was threatened I would be banned. I was accused of not thinking other users were giving their opinions in good faith when I literally wrote a few hours earlier I believe all users, even those I don’t agree with are working in good faith. I was accused of saying other users were engaging in sexism, racism & political bias for their opinions but when you simply scroll up, you can see I never said that, it was other users (None of which were threatened with a ban by the way). Now I have other users throwing their Wikipedia seniority around at me without even having accurate data on myself.

  I have given my opinion. I didn’t plan on having a back & fourth with anyone until my name was specifically mentioned by other users. Again I will repeat THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME. I look forward to reading others opinion on the matter now.

  Thank you & have a nice day all

  MIAJudges (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's quite a few words not to answer my question: what is your basis for your assertion that no nominee for a judgeship has ever had an article deleted? If you cannot support it, then it ought to be considered retracted. Ravenswing 18:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You...you what? You've edited here under multiple accounts? Are you familiar with our sockpuppetry policy? Are you also aware of or willing to comply with our guideline for declaring legitimate socks? at WP:ALTACCN? Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 21:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this is the last time I am going to repeat this. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME. To answer your question before we end the conversation about me & go back to the issue at hand, I did not say I am editing under multiple accounts. @Ravenswing stated he went into my profile to look at how long I have been on Wikipedia (I still don't know why he did or why that would be relevant to this conversations). I explained to him I had another account. HAD, past tense. I do not use that account anymore, I use MIAJudges now which is why if he wanted to know anything about me he simply could have just asked. I have been on Wikipedia longer than this profile shows because I had another account I no longer use. Ok, once again enough about me. I look forward to the rest of the conversation regarding the issue at hand.

MIAJudges (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you chose to respond to this good-faith question regarding sockpuppetry (which is a serious issue in my eyes, but that's neither here nor there. I see guidelines here to identifying past accounts unless the new account is for a WP:CLEANSTART) as opposed to Ravenswing's many questions regarding policy-based rationales against deletion both here in this ANI thread and in AfDs like these: 1 2 3 4. Will you respond to those? I have made my position here at the bottom of the thread and in many AfDs. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 04:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this is the last time I am going to repeat this. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME

As a point of order, anyone involved in this incident is subject to scrutiny. That includes you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

As for my rational, I have written it numerous times, here, on the individual nominees deletion request pages (To be honest there are so many that I’ve lost count) & I wrote at length on the Tiffany Cartwright deletion request page last year. I do not want to repeat my argument once again so I will stand by what I have written already.

As for “ anyone involved in this incident is subject to scrutiny”, anything I have written you are more than welcome to discuss & ask about. Any past account that I had years ago is frankly nobody’s business on this thread. There are numerous reasons somebody ends a Wikipedia account (Stalking, problem with a spouse or partner that has access to their account, ect.) that can lead to that person ending the account they have. I am not in trial here. I am a Wikipedia volunteer user. I will be more than happy to discuss the issue at hand but I will NOT continue discussing myself as I am not the subject of this conversation.

Thank you all

MIAJudges (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

MIAJudges: if there is 'simply no way' then NPOL really should be changed. The whole point of NPOL is it's supposed to list cases when we can be sure by the circumstances that the person is notable. Nil Einne (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Should clarify if it's not NPOL being changed then at least some other guideline or project page like WP:USCJN should reflect this special circumstance for US federal judge nominees which would potentially be linked to from NPOL. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

(EC with BD2412) More generally, I'm in agreement with Ravenswing that several editors seem to be making claims about notability that are not written in any policy or guideline and which I doubt will achieve consensus. It's even more concerning that I think there is a good chance editors are creating articles based on this non existent notability guideline.

Note that it may be the case that a large percentage of such nominees are inherently notable and so it's reasonable to create articles for most of them and any AfD nominator needs to great care about GNG and before. But this also means that anyone creating articles needs to make sure that the person meets GNG before creating the article rather than just saying they are inherently notable due to their nomination and we must have an article. And anyone defending such an article needs to be able to find the sources which demonstrate GNG rather than just using the nomination.

Also I'd be reluctant to assume any sort of political bias by the nominator just because these nominees are Biden one. To state the obvious, Biden is the current president. Any nominees from Trump or Obama have either been appointed to the court or have lapsed. If they've been appointed then they pass NPOL. If they've lapsed, there's much of a chance that they've been dealt with especially since I find it doubtful people care as much as they seem to care about these nominees no matter the claim that such nominees are notable. Of course even without being appointed to the federal court, it's possible they've moved on with their careers in other ways making them more clearly notable.

I do have a question. Do we really have articles on every single one of Obama and Trump's nominees? According to the claim they're inherently notable then we could have, and given the interest in these we should have. If there are some we don't have articles on, did we never have articles or were they deleted?

Nil Einne (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Folks don't seem to realize that we don't need an article started as soon as a nomination is announced. Because they were "in the news" for being nominated doesn't mean "there must be an article today". If they weren't of note to be worth writing about the day before, being nominated doesn't make it urgent.

Courtesy @Snickers2686 since I'm citing their comment, but they're not the only one to make the case. Star Mississippi 03:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, but if you're autopatrolled, then it's okay, right? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry not sure what you mean by that. Articles that don't meet current criteria are an issue regardless of whether an editor is autopatrolled. Star Mississippi 03:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Meaning that if you're autopatrolled then they don't get screened and that editor gets a pass. But if you're not, then you're put under more scrutiny. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't get the relevance of this to the the existing discussion. This thread started off about articles which were nominated by Let'srun. I see no evidence they've only targeted articles from editors who are not autopatrolled. The thread has moved on somewhat to several editors expressing concern about comments by others who seem to be claiming something which isn't supported by the notability guidelines and using this to support the creation or keeping articles. I'm not even convinced many editors in this discussion even knows who started these articles (I haven't looked myself), or definitely that they care. However now that you bring it up, from my PoV, an editor who is autopatrolled and starting these articles under the rationale that any nomination for federal judgeship is enough to confer notability is far more concerning to me than an editor who is not autopatrolled precisely because we're assume editors who are autopatrolled understand such basics when they apparently don't. Can you list and notify any editor who is autopatrolled and is so poorly informed on our notability guidelines about federal judgeship nominations so that we can get an idea of the problem? I feel we need to seriously consider taking the autopatrolled flag away from any such editors. If the editor believes that but has not started any articles it's still somewhat concerning however since there is no effective misuse of the autopatrolled flag, it's probably something we can let slide with a reminder to the editor that they need to brush up on our notability guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Should mention I partially confused Ravenswing and Star Mississippi, however I'm in agreement with both. Nil Einne (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there are ravens in Misssissippi so it works ;-) @Nil Einne @Ravenswing Star Mississippi 14:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

(cackles) I expect so! Ravenswing 17:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, articles exist on all (or nearly all) nominees. If Wikipedia goes ahead with this change, it will almost certainly be picked up by the legal industry press. Judicial nominations are probably the most single important topic in judicial politics. New nomination articles are usually instantly the #1 headlines on legal news websites like Law360. That's why these threads have a ton of lawyers baffled at Wikipedia bureaucrats questioning whether nominations are notable. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iowalaw2, Wikipedia doesn't actually care very much about being picked up by the legal industry press. We hope people will be interested in figuring out why we do what we do, but we're much more interested in getting things right in the long run. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course, as we all know, providing useful articles on subjects of broad public interest pales in comparison with insider trench warfare. Iowalaw2 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the broader issue here, but if we're going to assign one of "what appears on Wikipedia" and "what appears on Law360" to the category "broad public interest" and the other to the category "insider [anything]", I think it's pretty clear you've got it backwards. --JBL (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, @Iowalaw2, I'm not sure what you're getting at? Could you please clarify? Valereee (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: As a primary contributor to WP:USCJN, I see no actionable issue with these nominations. AfD nominations of pending judges will always, of course, be restricted to the president currently in office, since any judicial nominations by past presidents would have expired upon that president leaving office. This is really not a tremendous number of nominations, and can be disposed of through regular AfD processes. I would tend to agree that a deep dive will find evidence of notability for anyone who ends up getting nominated for a federal judgeship, but that does not translate to automatically keeping articles in mainspace where that deep dive has not been made. BD2412 T 02:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment (potentially involved?): I see that I voted to draftify on the Tiffany Cartwright AfD last year, and it's an unpleasant surprise to see that popping up on this board. I will say essentially what I said then, though; the guideline for articles here has almost always been WP:GNG. WP:USCJN provides an exception to that when judicial nominees are confirmed, but not before. If, though, a nominee is notable or has garnered significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (e.g. Dale Ho before confirmation and really before his nomination too), that plainly qualifies the subject for an article. I see a lot of WP:BLUDGEONing here, for which I see that MIAJudges has been advised to avoid. The main thrust of the arguments against draftification then in the AfD and DRV and now are inconsistencies with other extant nominees' pages; here, these inconsistencies seem to be remedied through discussion. Even that runs counter to site deletion policy wherein extant consensus and guidelines, not inconsistencies in application thereof, hold sway. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• I've got a considerably more disturbing bit to report. We've already seen that @MIAJudges is deeply resistant to answering questions about what actual notability criteria are represented in their keep advocacy, and deeply resistant to providing evidence of their assertion that no article on a judicial nominee has ever been deleted, and is now digging in heels over their revelation that they are operating under an alternate account. With that. See, a SPA has arrived to toss in Keeps on some of the AfDs in question, and while looking those over, the SPA had tagged one of the nominee AfDs I hadn't looked at before. So before chiming in on the discussion, I looked over the sources to see if they met the GNG (without exception, they hadn't.)

  The final source was added by MIAJudges, a New York Times article with the headline "Garnett was instrumental in exonerating five people". Okay, thought I, that sounds like it's going to be significant coverage. Not only was it nothing of the sort ("But the findings by Mr. O’Malley, who worked closely with a senior prosecutor, Margaret M. Garnett, would seem to raise serious questions about the convictions in Ms. Raymond’s killing because the Bronx prosecutor’s office relied on the same key witnesses and said the two murders were related." is the sum total of what pertained to the subject), but the headline MIAJudges attributed to the article was spurious. Here's the diff in question: [2]. Now MIAJudges has been very steadfast in not answering direct questions, but I think we can neither any longer tolerate that, nor assume MIAJudges' good faith. MIAJudges has some serious explaining to do, and to do at once. Ravenswing 06:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I am not sure what your issue is. I have done nothing but answer your questions on MULTIPLE different deletion requests. I literally just answered you on the “Deepak Gupta (Attorney)” deletion request & you responded. I have my suspicions about you & your motivations but I have kept them to myself. You have on multiple occasions tried to convince administrators & other users to ban, ignore & bypass users opinions who are different from yours. You even used vulgarities on the Jennifer L. Hall deletion request. I wasn’t planning on replying any longer so that other users can give their opinions but for some reason you continue to name drop me. I am going to ask you again, please keep the conversation about the issue at hand. That is, should nominees for federal judges be considered notable.

  We have a difference of opinion in which the administrator will decide. I have given my opinion on this page & about a handful others on this subject over the last few days. Frankly I’ve spent too much time on this subject & certainly too much time replying to you. I am looking forward to the opinions of other users & decision by the administrator but please cease including me in your replies. Honestly I think your opinion like mine is well known at this point so I for one am not interested in continuing any further back & fourth with you.

  MIAJudges (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  You have repeatedly refused to answer the question as to what actual notability criteria you are referring to in your Keep advocacy. You have repeatedly refused to answer the question as to what evidence you have for your assertion that no judicial nominee's article has ever been deleted on Wikipedia. You've refused to answer questions about operating from an alternate account. And you are now ducking the question about you having added a spurious headline to a news source to make it appear as if the subject was notable. You damn well know what my issue is, at this stage ... but I quite understand, at this point, why you are not interested in further responses. Ravenswing 06:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't filed on that new account as I can't find the master, but I've seen the these pages are regularly created on the announcement text verbatim somewhere. Who knew judges were such a passionate topic.

  @MIAJudges all editors' conduct is looked at in a discussion. You're not immune simply because the original discussion wasn't opened about you. While I found you to be editing in good faith in our prior interactions, this isn't a good look Star Mississippi 11:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I am a volunteer editor here on Wikipedia. I, like everybody else do not get paid for the time & work put into it. My editing is in good faith. I see a subject (Almost exclusively editing on judicial related items), update & reference accordingly. We are assumably all adults here. When I see another user make a mistake I usually correct it myself quietly. That’s how I view Wikipedia, an outlet for the world to read an online encyclopedia about various subjects.

  As I’ve said I have no problem at all with anybody responding to any opinion I have on this or any subject. This has seem to turn into something I have no interest in being included in. Treats to ban, vulgarities being used, people accusing others of political motives & racism & the intentions of others being questioned is nothing I’ve rarely if ever have seen on Wikipedia. I only intended on writing once or twice about this subject giving my opinion on the matter & waiting for others to give their opinion so the administrator can make a decision. Somehow every time I log on to Wikipedia now, I see my name being tagged either on this or another deletion request. I have made my opinion known. I’ve asked repeatedly for all users to give their opinion without including my name in it unless it’s to reply about an opinion I’ve given.

  I am a busy man who has a life outside of Wikipedia. I’ve spent entirely too much time replying to other users about this subject. I am hoping this will be the last time I log in & see my name referenced or tagged on this manner. Once again I have no interest in adding further to this subject. I have written my opinion on it as far back as the Tiffany Cartwright deletion request last year. I am hoping this will be the last time I need to reply to any user.

  Thank you

  MIAJudges (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• "but they seem to be bios of people (mostly judges) appointed by Joe Biden" So, newish BLP articles, about people who were not particularly notable prior to the 2020 elections. These type of articles are not inherently notable, nor is there a guarantee that reliable sources will pay attention to these appointments. Let "Let'srun" deal will all this political Fancruft to his/her heart's content. No big loss to get these articles scrutinized. Dimadick (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know. I think that there might be a pretty serious behavioral issue brewing here, especially given a dayslong avoidance of policy-based justifications for keeps coupled with stuff like this misrepresentation of a title of a source to help bolster the keep case at the article's AfD. I haven't seen a satisfying explanation for that, if there is an explanation at all. @MIAJudges: might you pop in? Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Once again I am going to assume good faith & you missed my reply yesterday, the day before that & the day before that. So I will repeat myself. I have given my opinion on the notability of the nominees in question on this AFD as well as the deletion request for about a half dozen others. My opinion has not changed therefore I have no additional comments. As I have said repeatedly, other users surely have opinions so I will not continue commenting over & over saying the same thing. Everyone is welcome to give their opinions & the administrator can make a determination.

  I had no intentions on commenting further but I open my email & see my name tagged yet again so I am only replying because of that. Me not logging into Wikipedia for a day is not a behavioral issue. I have a life outside of Wikipedia. Had I not gotten an email saying somebody tagged my name it probably would have been a days or maybe week long absence because as I have repeatedly said I have given my opinion & I stand by it. I will await other users opinions & final decision by the administrator.

  Thank you

  MIAJudges (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges: that's funny; I went through your recent contributions again and still can't find an explanation for the misrepresentation of the article or a justification for keeps rooted in policy. Would you mind linking to diffs? Otherwise, @Ravenswing:, yeah, I've half a mind to propose a TBAN. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 14:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Be my guest. I'd certainly support it. Ravenswing 14:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Iseult, they've requested not to be pinged here multiple times now. Valereee (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Whoop, I must have missed that. MIAJudges, my apologies. @Ravenswing: if you start it up (I have a job etc. to take care of), I'd be interested in seeing your proposed resolution. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 15:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• It's spitting into the wind at this point; MIAJudges very resolutely refuses to answer the questions about his several misrepresentations and his outright falsification of a source. Especially given his staunch refusal to explain himself, I'd think the latter worthy of a topic ban, myself. Ravenswing 10:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  WOW, four straight days of requesting you to keep my name out of your mouth yet I wake up & the first thing I see is an email from Wikipedia with you tagging me yet AGAIN. If I were a lesser man I would say this was borderline harassment but I’ve dealt with much worse so I won’t even bother.

  AGAIN, this is an AFD about should judicial nominees be considered notable. I have an opinion on that subject & have given it repeatedly. If you have an opinion on that feel free to comment. At this point there seems to be 2 or 3 users taking over this AFD engaging in everything from accusing people of making accusations they did not make, throwing their Wikipedia seniority around trying to belittle other users who may have less time contributing, using vulgarities, trying to get people banned to now outright harassment.

  I hope the administrator who will determine the subject at hand completely blocks all of the nonsense out. I know it’s hard but once again this is about the notability of judicial nominees & them being allowed to have a page created or not, no matter if a few users try to turn this into anything but that. I hope the administrator takes a good look at who has tried to stick to the subject & respect others views even in disagreement & who has turned this discussion into a mud slinging affair.

  I have for four days straight asked for the discussion to stick to the topic at hand & let other users comments since mine as well as a few others views are well known by this time. I hope the administrator sees I have been repeatedly tagged in replies from a few users after four straight days of asking them to stop. The funniest thing about the few users who continue to try & ban users from this discussion is if they would just stop tagging them repeatedly in their comments, they would de facto get their wish because I for one have said I have given my opinion & will now await the opinions of others & then the decision by the administrator.

  MIAJudges (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Were you going to let any of us at this discussion know you had posted this [[3]]? Let'srun (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Why? Do you object to an editor in good standing making a proposal at the Village Pump for something they think would improve Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken, I have no objection to MIAJudges making the proposal, but it would be nice if they had pinged more than just the people he or she thought would support it. Let'srun (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Eh, there's nothing wrong with such a proposal; I've suggested a couple times myself that the avenue towards getting their POV across was to make one. Discounting anon IPs who just happened to discover it (hrm), it's going down to near-unanimous opposition in any event. Ravenswing 23:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for judge nominee articles

Personally I think these articles are harmless and focusing on deleting them isn't necessary. Most of the nominees will be confirmed, and we can eventually consider deleting the articles on the ones who aren't; and there is value to the nominee articles in the meantime for readers who might be interested in the backgrounds of the nominees. Person-by-person notability debates, about articles most of which will inevitably be created and kept in any event on the upcoming weeks or months, are not necessarily the best use of contributors' and community's time.

However, as a compromise, how about an umbrella "Joe Biden judicial nominees" article (or perhaps a series of articles by circuit or state)? This could include a short bio of each nominee, if he or she is not otherwise deemed notable, which could then be spun out and expanded into a full article upon a nominee's being confirmed and taking office. Not to strain for an analogy, but this is how we handle, for example, baseball prospects projected to reach the majors but currently in the minor leagues. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I kind of feel like this is a good choice. These nominees are basically all going to become notable, either because they are confirmed, which makes them notable, or because they aren't confirmed, which makes them notable. Maybe we could simply create drafts instead of articles, and once there's some conclusion, move to article space? Valereee (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

A significant proportion of the AfDs in question have draftification under discussion. I don't think there's any policy argument that judge nominee articles belong in mainspace. There's certainly no one doing that in this section. I've said above that drafts are the way to go, either by starting them out as drafts or by draftification pending confirmation. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 05:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to any (or all) of these articles being moved to draft space. There's just far less certitude that these nominations are going to be confirmed than any of you might think. My apologies for diving into the snakepit that's US politics, but the unfortunate fact is that with the Democrats holding just a razor thin Senate majority, confirmation of hundreds of Senate-required positions have been held up, and two and a half years into Biden's term, there are still many hundreds of posts that are being filled by acting officials or caretakers. WP:CRYSTAL really does apply here: some of these nominations are likely to fail confirmation. Ravenswing 13:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but if they aren't confirmed, that is quite likely to make them notable, too. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Moving the articles to draft space means that if a reader wants to know something about a pending, and potentially controversial, nominee, he or she will not be able to find that information on Wikipedia. For that reason the idea of merging background information on the nominees to an article on that subject strikes me as a clearly better alternative.

This noticeboard may not be the best place to advance my proposal, though, as it doesn't relate to a conduct issue. Is there one central or primary pending AfD where I should mention it? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

If the nominee passes WP:GNG, I agree that they should have an article. It is why I didn't submit an Afd for Charnelle Bjelkengren or several other more currently controversial nominees, as they do pass GNG by having WP:SIGCOV written about them. Let'srun (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem is that you're starting to fall into the trap of some of the fuzzy keep proponents at the AfDs. We do not have articles about "potentially" controversial subjects; as a lot of people are fond of saying, Wikipedia is not for breaking news. Our notability guidelines accord notability to subjects that have gained media attention. An omnibus article doesn't pass CRYSTAL either if there aren't reliable sources giving that subject coverage in "sufficient detail." 0+0+0+0+0=0. Draft space is the perfect place for articles on subjects that do not yet have the significant coverage we require in biographical articles -- let alone BLPs -- but where there's a reasonable chance that there might be down the road. Ravenswing 21:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's probably a reasonable point that moving to draft space means readers can't find the information. But merging into Nominees for US judgeships means creating an article that would need to be updated constantly forever, wouldn't it? Valereee (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Some nominees will simply not even receive a vote, and not be renominated. Let'srun (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, we are falling into the trap of WP:CRYSTAL. We can't assume that someone will be notable before they are, and certain editors are creating mainspace articles WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Failed judicial nominations are so rare that they are in and of themselves notable. Respectfully, the idea that a significant number of judicial nominees are not confirmed demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the subject under discussion. Whatever the probability is for confirmations in the executive branch, the overwhelming majority of judicial nominees are confirmed. Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iowalaw2, if you look at WP:USCJN, you'll see that WP knows that many failed nominations are likely to result in notability even if the person wasn't notable before. The problems is that it hasn't happened. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Presidential_judicial_nominees_automatically_notable on whether that fact means we should just go ahead and create the articles. Valereee (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it makes complete sense to upend Wikipedia's universal practice of covering judicial nominees even when (1) there is a strong case to be made that the nomination itself is notable, (2) many or most nominees are notable regardless of the nomination, and (3) everyone agrees that virtually all will be notable in a few months. What is the actual policy benefit of this, in English? Beyond a couple of editors getting angry at MIAJudges and trying to antagonize him by deleting his articles, in the process spiting the rest of legal Wikipedia? Iowalaw2 (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't actually even have a strong opinion on the policy itself. The concern for me is more that we've got one, and without a good reason not to, we follow it or we get consensus to change it. But we don't just say, "I disagree with that policy so I'm going to work outside it." Valereee (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Not saying you are at fault, but certain editors have the tendency to create articles for judicial nominees WP:TOOSOON. I would be fine with the compromise of having the articles in draftspace if that would end the discussion (unless they pass WP:GNG otherwise), but many of these nominees (and former nominees, for that matter) aren't notable people. Let'srun (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad Person-by-person notability debates, about articles most of which will inevitably be created and kept in any event on the upcoming weeks or months, are not necessarily the best use of contributors' and community's time. that's part of why I advocated for @MIAJudges et al on the Cartwright Talk to try and get the guideline re-explored rather than continuing to litigate there (no pun intended). It's current consensus, but doesn't necessarily mean it's future consensus. Hell there's an article I started whose subject I'm pretty sure fails N:POL as written, but I felt confident in a GNG case should someone bring it to AfD that I decided to work on her article.

@Iseult I think Draft space is perfect for these. Interested editors can begin to work on them there so that if/when they are confirmed, there's probably at least a start quality article which is more useful to the reader than rushing to create stubs. Star Mississippi 21:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@BD2412: I think you are the most active editor in this area, so I'd welcome your thoughts on my suggestion, and your view on where would be the best place to discuss it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden exists, and lists nominees not yet confirmed. We could in theory have a separate List of pending federal judicial nominations by Joe Biden, which could house biographical paragraphs on the nominees, but I am somewhat dubious about creating an article that by definition would need to cease to exist at the end of the Biden presidency. I think it is common sense to at least maintain drafts on any nominees who are not otherwise notable. BD2412 T 03:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There are 435 voting members of the U.S. House of Representatives, all of whom are deemed notable. But a candidate endorsed by a major political party is not deemed notable, even though an opponent who is an incumbent member will have an article. There are a greater number of federal trial judges, and what is proposed now that a nominee for a judgeship will be entitled to a wikipedia article. So apparently judges who apply the law are more notable than representatives who actually make the law. And the argument that Wikipedia articles are important to vet judicial candidates (even though it is doubtful that such an article would be important to the President), would apply with greater weight to voters who actually choose the lawmakers. Let's be consistent here. Kablammo (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

How do you figure that? The legislators who MAKE the law ARE notable, don't know where you read that they weren't. In any case the two examples (candidate versus presidential nominee) are not in any way equivalent, it's a false analogy, and not helpful in any way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

A nominee for federal judicial office is no more inherently notable than than a nominated candidate for congress. The mere nomination does not by itself confer notability. Kablammo (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that you believe that, but, in fact, they are totally different things and cannot be compared with any justification. The person nominating the judges is the President of the United States of American, properly elected by the people of the United States. The persons nominating a candidate for the House are local politicians of one political party who represent only that party and nobody else. Their gravitas is negligible. No comparison. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I get you believe that, but -- in fact -- your POV is nowhere reflected in any notability criteria on Wikipedia. For the purposes of WP:JUDGE, the nominator is irrelevant. (It's also irrelevant to ANI, this being a dispute that belongs on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).) Ravenswing 19:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A judicial nomination is not even plausibly analogous to a party nomination for elected office. And anyway the idea that Wikipedia should refuse to provide articles for major-party nominees is very questionable (see all of the coverage of the war over the Theresa Greenfield article). Iowalaw2 (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• There is already a solution for articles that might be notable, either draft or user space and making the articles that do become notable live once notability has been confirmed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: temporary TBAN

I'm proposing a TBAN for MIAJudges revolving around deletion discussions for one month, broadly construed. This is mainly due to the fact that they misrepresented a source title in Margaret Garnett [here and have not provided an explanation for that since Ravenswing challenged them about it on July 5 (three days ago) here and two subsections above. MIA has been defending extant articles on U.S. federal judicial nominees for a bit more than a week now, and this is one of the articles under discussion. Given that, it's hard to assume good faith; if this were a misunderstanding or accident, judging by MIA's activity since, they have had many opportunities to clear this up.

They have also commented often in AfDs seen here using non-policy-based rationales. Ordinarily, I would not consider this significant, but they have repeatedly been challenged to provide policy-based rationales, and they have repeatedly failed to do so. This, coupled with the misrepresentation above, serve to convince me that either they don't possess the requisite familiarity with our notability guidelines despite participating in many discussions (thus tying up volunteer time and energy) or that they are not operating in good faith due to passion for the subject. In either case, I hope that a TBAN will allow MIAJudges the opportunity to step back for a bit, review our notability guidelines, and avoid misleading editors at AfD through sourcing issues. I ask for a short time frame because I do believe that they are a productive editor otherwise and, by then, the AfDs in question should have concluded. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 02:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I concur in every particular with Iseult's position. With the somewhat grave exception of MIAJudges' falsification of a headline in the Garnett article (apparently to make it seem as if the subject was considerably more prominent in the news article than was genuinely the case), MIAJudges' actions -- as well as the bludgeoning for which they've already been cautioned -- might not be taken collectively as sanction-worthy. Toss in that falsification, and double that with MIAJudges' consistent refusal to proffer ANY explanation: not for their misrepresentations, not for their falsification, not for operating an alternate account with the professed purpose of promoting judges? Instead, as is manifest in the thread above and in the respective AfDs in question, their modus operandi is to write long walls of text that don't actually address the questions.

  The reason for talk pages, for reply buttons, for responses on threads like these is to communicate. We are none of us immune to being questioned, and it is neither good nor collaborative practice to treat questions as an insulting imposition only worth ignoring. Perhaps a time-limited TBAN would bring MIAJudges around to sticking to the facts and to a less adversarial way of behavior. Ravenswing 14:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - This appears to me to be motivated by politics, and not policy-based. Nominations by the President of the United State for high office are (or should be) automatically Wikinotable, regardless of whether they have been confirmed or not, especially when the president involved is dealing with a Senate controlled by the opposite party, which is apparently deliberately holding up confirmations for poltical reasons having nothing to do with the quality of the nominees, similar to what happened to Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination near the end of the Obama administration. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool of any political party, and we should avoid becoming a de facto tool in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'd also like consideration to be given to the rather abysmal behavior in this thread of the proposer and the support voter just above to the nominee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I presume by the proposer you mean me? I welcome and appreciate your feedback and scrutiny. I do have a few questions, though; I went through my comments in this thread and, asides from this proposal and my initial note, which was a reiteration of my position on these articles, is unadulterated shock at a naked confession of sockpuppetry. The comments following are requests for clarification regarding that and also asks for policy-based keep rationales so that I might change my position if warranted, as any editor should do (w.r.t. the latter). When I pinged MIA one too many times (I confess here that I did not and do not see any requests from them not to ping), I immediately apologized without reservation or qualification. What should I have done instead? What makes this abysmal?

  As for politics, I resent any implication of political malfeasance. Asides from a general assumption of less-than-good faith, I think that my actions in the relevant AfDs vindicate me. I have taken each article on its own merits and have concurred or broken with (to !vote keep) Letsrun whenever appropriate based on my own judgement.

  Lastly, I'm sorry to hear of your family situation. I've seen you around the project for many years now and have garnered great respect for you and your work. I hope it is resolved well and soon. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah this looks like a vendetta to me. (Full disclosure that I'm also generally more sympathetic to @MIAJudges than @Ravenswing or @Iseult on the merits, and I do not think either @MIAJudges or @Ravenswing have conducted themselves very well.) Iowalaw2 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Editors are expected to make policy-based arguments at AfD. Repeated making ones that are not based on policy and failing to justify them when questioned is disruptive, as it can result in issues with local consensuses. BilledMammal (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose. I see nothing here rising to the level of a month-long punishment, where a warning would suffice. BD2412 T 02:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Support: I actually was feeling along the same lines as you here as well (although I might have supported a shorter punishment just for the Garnett title), but I recently found that @MIAJudges (or at least I presume this is them, if not I apologize) was canvassing on (Redacted). I'm willing to believe that MIAJudges was unaware that this is frowned upon, but regardless I think a suspension from the topic is in order for them to take the time and learn about the various policies. Let'srun (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  I cannot believe a full TWO WEEKS after I asked for @Let'srun & another user to stop communicating with me after their 8 days straight of doing so, I wake up & see an email from Wikipedia with him still doing so.

  First you accused me of currently having multiple Wikipedia accounts. This is after I repeatedly told you I only have one, & had one many years ago that I no longer use & couldn’t even remember how to log into even if I wanted to. A simple IP address check could confirm that.

  Last week you started some bogus Sock Poppet investigation on me after I stopped replying to you, knowing I would have to respond to you because of it. After that went no where, I didn’t reply to you, mention your name or bash you. I just want to be done with you. I just want my name to stop coming out of your mouth.

  Then, you put in deletion request for non judicial nominees articles I started. That’s well within your right but that also went nowhere & the articles were KEEP. Once again in each case I stayed my opinion (Which were agreed to) & didn’t communicate with you further.

  Somebody put in a T-ban for YOU. I didn’t bother giving my opinion on supporting it or not, not because I didn’t have one, but because it would require me to communicate with you which I don’t want to.

  Now, two weeks after my initial comments on the manner & after asking you no longer communicate with me, you are looking outside of Wikipedia trying to link me to this & that. What’s next, linking me to the Kennedy assassination???

  At first I thought you were just passionate about a certain subject. Then I thought to myself (Never wrote it on here) perhaps it was politically motivated. Then I thought perhaps you were just principled. Now I think you’re simply obsessed & unhinged. The fact that your still talking about me two weeks later is concerning.

  For the last time, the “Garnett title” that you keep bringing up is a ridiculous accusation. I did not put the initial comment about Garnett exonerating the 5 individuals. Somebody else put that on her page & put a reference with it. I added a reference. The NY Times article I referenced came from the initial reference that was put in the first place. I simply added the reference that was already in the initial reference. I didn’t go looking for the reference on line, it was already in the article that was initially referenced. I just added it.

  Look, I want to make this perfectly clear. I haven’t seen you mention my name, attack me or make outlandish accusations about me for about a week now. It felt great opening my email & not seeing you & the other user not mentioning my name so I can go on with my life. I have NEVER put in a request to ban anybody on Wikipedia or even write in support of one. I am really really trying hard not to break that streak but you are pushing it. I do not want to communicate with you & I would appreciate if you kept my name out of my mouth. I have asked you this for two weeks & I hope this is the last time I ever have to communicate with you.

  MIAJudges (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, it is off wiki canvassing from someone who claims to be you. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Huh. Well, first off, on the Garnett issue, your excuse is hollow. The diff you entered is plain: {{Cite web |date=August 3, 2012 |title=Garnett was instrumental in exonerating five people |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/nyregion/5-convicted-in-bronx-cabbys-1995-murder-are-innocent-us-says.html |language=en-US}}. Those were your words; no one else's. They are not found in the article. They are not found anywhere else. That is your edit, and any editor on Wikipedia can see that. You ask us to take it on faith -- against the direct proof -- that you weren't responsible for that, the same way you ask us to take it on faith that you're not doing any chicanery with this alternate account of yours, the same way you asked us to take it on faith that no judicial nominee's article was ever deleted or draftified, the same way you're asking us to take it on faith that the person offwiki canvassing for your Village Pump proposal isn't really you.

  Let's make one thing quite clear: your conduct is under review here. You do not get to order us not to do so. Nor is your lashing out with anger because editors dare question you a good look. At this point, I'm less inclined to think a temporary tban is the answer and more inclined to think an indef block is, and if you don't like that, then you only have your repeated stonewalling and deflections to blame for it. Ravenswing 06:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think there may be some misunderstanding of that source being added. MIA added a source that they may have believe supported a statement already in the article, and when they did so, they replaced the source title with that statement, possibly because they may have mistakenly thought that was a helpful way to indicate which statement the source supported.

  @MIAJudges, if that's what happened, there are two things wrong there: First, we don't change the title of sources without a very good reason. You could instead have put that info (that you were adding a ref to support a poorly-sourced statement) into your edit summary. Second, the source you added doesn't support that statement; Garnett is barely mentioned in that source, and the source says nothing about her being instrumental. Which combined with the first problem is what makes it look like you're intentionally misrepresenting the source. I'm bending over backwards here to interpret this generously, really.

  That said, I'm willing to give you some slack if you'll tell me you understand and won't do it again. Sorry for the ping, but I actually do need an answer on this. Valereee (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'll add that the canvassing, which does appear to be by someone claiming to be you, is not acceptable. And more than that, it doesn't work. So you end up looking bad for no good reason. Valereee (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Valereee

  I have no problem with you or any other users pinging me if you have a question with the exception of the two mentioned above. I’ve never ever asked somebody not to ping me on Wikipedia before. Unfortunately the two I mentioned have simply repeatedly pinged me, not acted in good faith towards me, have made accusations against me & attacked me.

  I, like everybody else on here am a volunteer. I do not log into Wikipedia for the treatment mentioned above.

  As for the Garnett article, yes I added a reference from The NY Times. But the reference was simply the same reference that was in the initial article in the first place. Anybody is more than welcome to open the article & see for themselves. I added the same reference from the article separately. What made me upset is one of the two users in question I mentioned above (I am really not trying to say their names because once again I don’t want to have a conversation with them) reverted it & wrote in the revert something to the affect that I added the reference trying to mislead users. This is all while not mentioning he took issue with the initial person who put the statement she exonerated 5 people nor mentioning the initial reference that was put their in the first place. When it comes to that particular user it’s always about attacking me regardless of where the facts led. As you can see from the tone of their message this morning, it doesn’t seem as though anything has changed.

  I am not going to link his talk page but a check of it will show himself & the user that instituted this proposed ban of myself plotting on how to ban me. It’s at the bottom of his talk page as we speak. He even said he doesn’t want to be the one to initiate it but will follow up if the other user does which they did. I didn’t bother commenting on the thread because he is certainly welcome to talk to whomever he wants to but just showing you an example of this user constantly attacking me.

  I volunteer my time in Wikipedia to improve articles. If I see a mistake I usually correct it & keep going. The two users I mentioned are not interested in that when it comes to me. For that reason, I simply want nothing to do with either of them to be honest.

  MIAJudges (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges, that wall of text is nonresponsive. Please tell me briefly whether:

  1. You understand that the |title= should be filled out only with the source's actual title.
  2. You understand that the source you cited did not support the statement you were apparently using it to support.
  3. You agree that these were mistakes and you will avoid making the same mistakes in future.
  4. You understand that canvassing is not allowed.
  5. You agree not to canvass in future.

  Valereee (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes I see after the fact the the article in question did not support what the initial user stated. I have always tried to make sure references back up statements. But I just want to make clear I did not intentionally mislead anybody like the user I mentioned above claimed in the revert. Had he just said what you said, the reference didn’t back up the statement, I would have happily removed it myself. When I put a title for a reference, I usually copy/paste the articles title. So I certainly try to avoid this & all mistakes in the past & will continue to do so in the future.

  As for canvassing, I talk about the judiciary outside of Wikipedia. I give my opinions & listen to others about the judiciary. But canvassing isn’t something I would be interested in because I only come to Wikipedia for the most part to review & update judiciary related items. I don’t believe in Wikipedia censoring what I say outside of Wikipedia. I am a firm believer in my first amendment rights. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned, these deletion request were the only time I cared to even involve myself in ADF’s (Going back to Tiffany Cartwright). Now that there seems to be consensus on how to handle this area in the future, I doubt I will ever engage in many if any ADF’s ever again so canvassing as far as Wikipedia is concerned isn’t something I have any interest in.

  MIAJudges (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Please see WP:CANVASSING, which is what telling people to go vote is. Quoting that policy: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

  It's not a vote, btw; we don't count them up and decide the winner. Please see WP:NOTAVOTE. Valereee (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  This echoes the language by Dequan quite closely, especially the idea that the first amendment allows them to say stuff off wiki without consequence. Combined with their admission to being a part of off wiki judicial discussions, it basically confirms they are the same person. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Just a reminder that while MIAJudges does not get to demand that editors to not look into their behaviour, they are fully entitled to ask someone stops pinging them. Such a request should be honoured. User:Let'srun really needs to stop pinging MIAJudges. As Iseult said below, they can use no ping template if a user page link is really needed. But frankly the best solution is simply to mention MIAJudges without linking. I don't see any reason why a link was needed above, MIAJudges has been linked so many times, if someone for some reason needs to find their user page, talk page of contributions page they can just visit one of the large number of earlier links. This is not the first time MIAJudges effectively asked Let'srun not ping them and it's been discussed before above. Frankly were it not for the fact that in the previous cases, it's not entirely clear to me that Let'srun read the warnings, I'd be support either a one way iban or a topic ban on Let'srun pinging MIAJudges. However if it happens again, I'd definitely support sanction against Let'srun. Please remember since MIAJudges is already aware of this thread, and no notification is required but in any case notification for ANI must be on an editor's talk page not via pings. For better or worse, editors are expected to pay attention to threads discussing their behaviour and while it's problematic when threads last as long and end up as sprawling as long as this, continually notifying an editor every time something new is discussed is unlikely to be the solution either and especially not when the editor has asked not to be notified. If there is a major new development and editors want MIAJudges feedback before they contemplate a response, it might be reasonable for some editor to approach MIAJudges likely on their talk page if they haven't said anything in a day or two but this really should come from an uninvolved editor or at least not one who's been repeatedly asked not to ping Let'srun. Ultimately though, if MIAJudges choose to ignore this thread, and asks not to be pinged then they do take responsibility if they can't offer feedback to anything said. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  As I wrote below, I apologize for that, I was actually trying to use the method Iseult made note of below. I do think though that MIAJudges may have accidentally confused me for Ravenswing however, since I never pinged them for so many days in a row like they claimed to have by myself. Let'srun (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  The claim that Dequan is not you is damaged by the fact that at the same time as you posted the response here Dequan posted the following comment:

  Y’all not gonna believe this. The Let’s Run idiot that is trying to pull all of judicial nominees pages down on Wikipedia is now spying on us here on this blog. Look at the link at the bottom. He’s taking screenshots of our conversations & posting them on Wikipedia to try & get sympathy. Excuse my French but what a miserable low life piece of shit.

  Let’s Run, if you’re reading this why don’t you comment? Why don’t you talk here instead of spying. Of course we wouldn’t be bound by Wikipedia’s rules here so we could tell you to make the world a better place & jump out of the window of a very tall building, without having to worry about being banned here… Lol

  Look, our comments on this blog are constitutionally protected by the first amendment. Perhaps if you spent less time trying to get judges pages taken down & more time reading about the judiciary, you might know that. Try getting out of your mothers basement for once & going out of the real world. You can’t ban us on her, only Harsh can do that. So either comment on here so we can talk man to man (Of course you would have to find a man to talk for you) or stop spying on us. But certainly feel free to take my advice about the jump out of a tall buildings window any day you feel like it.

  The writing style also seems similar to me. Further, I note that you are not protected from action here by limiting your personal attacks against an editor, as well as your encouragements for that editor to kill themself, to a different forum. BilledMammal (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal could you link to the comment? And archive it if possible. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Here. And archived to Wayback Machine. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Comment does seem to be a couple minutes after their comments here. It would take quite an effort to go through and find what the user "Dequan" from that forum has posted and to correlate it here, since the forum doesnt seem to have been built that well. I cant find a page for user information there, and manually doing so will be quite time consuming.
  Prima facie it does seem to correlate roughly with the editor's area of interest and on wiki timelines. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Found more responses regarding Dequan and wiki -

  [4]
  this one is a bit more detailed
  [5]
  [6]
  someone else admitting to voting in a discussion after being advised to do so by "Dequan"
  another one admitting
  [7]
  [8]
  [9]
  [10]
  Another person admitting
  Celebrating the TBAN proposal of Let's run by "Dequan"
  [11]

  (Archive incase deleted)
  These are from the last week, roughly in chronological order. Could an admin or someone experienced go through these and see if they match up with any editors here? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  This search seems to turn up quite a bit. I think this comment proves they are the same person; in that comment, made at the end of December 2022, they said Haaaaa… I actually clear my schedule for the SJC hearings so I can post the nominees pictures on Wikipedia. Monica Ramirez will definitely be amongst the firats when she has her hearing… Lol. Two months later, MIAJudges added a picture to Monica Ramirez's article.

  If I am right then I now see the canvassing as a minor issue. The greater issue is the personal attacks which I believe amount to harassment; I don't care where an editor is doing it, editors should never tell another editor to kill themself. BilledMammal (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  There's enough to block, but I'm far too involved. I will start the proposal though. Star Mississippi 12:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Another one saying they added the pic for the tiffany cartwright page, taken from your search [12] and MIAJudges did also add the picture there [13].

  IMO enough to establish that its the same person, and in that case I would suggest an indef site ban for MIAjudges. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  For further evidence that they are the same person, Dequan left the following comment at 4:20 AM on the 15th of September, 2022.

  I will be very interested to see who the nominees are for next week’s SJC hearing. For circuit court, it will be interesting to see if they go in order. If so, Julie Rikelman should be one of the two nominees.

  If @Shawn is right & senator Manchin won’t vote for an outright pro-choice nominee, she is the creme de la creme. I was just updating some of her notable cases on her Wikipedia page & WOW, I had to stop after some because I didn’t want her page to be too long… Lol

  If she stands no chance of being confirmed with this congress, I hope Durbin switches her out with either DeAndrea G. Benjamin or Jabari Wamble & save her for the next hearing since whoever is in that hearing won’t stand any chance of being confirmed before the midterms anyway.

  At 4:09 AM on the same day, MIAJudges made this edit to Julie Rikelman. BilledMammal (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@BD2412: I do not mean this as a punishment; I mean this as a preventative measure. I am happy to reduce the proposed TBAN length or to modify the remedy, but the net effect of this must be to allow MIAJudges to properly review our notability guidelines and so properly apply them without disrupting extant AfD processes. I was happy with the seeming natural diffusion of this conflict with this proposal heading to no consensus (even with inconsistencies with previous accounts statements; I have noted to Ravenswing that I find the given explanation fine on their talk), but the core of this is a previous lack of communication primarily regarding a misstatement of a source title of an article under contentious AfD. The explanation given above for that is an expansion on a one-liner I've seen on some other AfD. I'm struggling to make sense of that, especially given the diff I linked in my proposal. Then there's the troubling canvassing link.

As an aside, @Let'srun:, perhaps a noping template might be better if a link to a userpage is needed at all. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 17:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Will do that next time. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: TBAN for Let'srun

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• For nominating a large number of Biden-nominated judge articles for deletion, based, apparently, on their personal political PoV, Let'srun is topic banned from nominating such articles, and any other articles about Biden's nominees, for six months.

• Support - as proposer. Nominations by the President of the United State for high office are (or should be) automatically Wikinotable, regardless of whether they have been confirmed or not, especially when the president involved is dealing with a Senate controlled by the opposite party, which is apparently deliberately holding up confirmations for poltical reasons having nothing to do with the quality of the nominees, similar to what happened to Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination near the end of the Obama administration. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool of any political party, and we should avoid becoming a de facto tool in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Let's recognize that basically all current nominations are by the current administration. That's just the process: whoever is in the white house is making the nominations. I do believe most high-level judgeship nominations are likely to be or become notable, even if not confirmed, but that doesn't make these AfDs political. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately it does, considering the tenor of the nominations, which (if you haven't already), you should read. Obviously notable people are presented as not passing GNG, for instance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's your opinion, anyway. Of the AfDs in question, four have closed as Delete, one as moving to draft space, and two have closed as Keep. It would seem that in the majority of these cases so far, the other editors disagree with your contention that this is "obvious." (With that, you were challenged on more than one of those AfDs to back up your assertion that the articles did indeed pass GNG with the sources you felt qualified. In every such instance, you remained silent.) Ravenswing 01:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I "remained silent" because of a medical crisis in my family IRL, which left me with very little time for Wikipedia (check my logs, you'll see my time here has been well below the average since a week ago Friday, except for today (Sunday) and a little yesterday). All is not as it seems, sometimes - but the politics being played here is very much for real, and Wikipedia is being sullied by it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken First off let me say I hope the medical situation with you & your family has been resolved. I wish whoever it was good health & God speed.

  As for the ban, I will stay out of it because I have made my opinions about him & @Ravenswing crystal clear. I honestly have no intentions of communicating with either of those users ever again. I just wanted to let you know I made a proposal for Wikipedia to consider so feel free to take a look & comment on the link below titled Presidential judicial nominees automatically notable.

  But once again the health of you & your family is most important so please take care of that before dedicating any more time to Wikipedia. Have a good day & take care.

  MIAJudges (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) MIAJudges (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  BMK, I've read the bottom six (userfy, keep, delete, delete, delete, not closed yet) and I don't see what you mean by "the tenor of the nominations"? In each case the nom rationale is "does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a [whatever] judge" Can you clarify what you mean by the tenor being political? Valereee (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: The nom seems to be playing the same game as MIAJudges is: claiming a standard which is not actually reflected in any notability guideline, and making a blanket statement without presenting one single shred of evidence to back it up. If Beyond My Ken wants WP:JUDGE to read differently, then they're free to make a proposal on the Notability talk page. In the meantime, we gauge notability on the standards that are already in place, not the standards we wish were in place if we were the ones writing the rules, and WP:JUDGE doesn't have any carve-out clauses reading "... except in cases where we really really think the opposition party is being naughty." This is a spurious counter-proposal reeking of bad faith, and it's saddening that Beyond My Ken can only conceive of political bias as a rationale for nominating such articles for deletion. Ravenswing 02:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I am not "playing a game", I am attempting to see that Wikipedia isn't used for political purposes, and that its content is the best in can be. If you insist on a policy-based justification for that, I suggest you re-read WP:IAR. That we would allow outside political manipulations to affect our content is totally abhorrent to me - and I would absolutely say that if the parties were reversed. As for the results at AfD, I note that your votes and those of Iseult helped bring about those conclusions, so your citing of them leaves me cold. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Since you don't like the results, I suppose they do leave you cold. They remain facts, all the same. "I would absolutely say that if the parties were reversed." Perhaps you would forgive this lifelong Democrat, and one-time elected Democratic officeholder, for believing that this vindictive, plainly partisan proposal of yours indicates quite the opposite. Ravenswing 15:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, and it strikes me as unfair to Letsrun that this was even proposed. The only thing they've (arguably) done wrong in this area is bundle some AFD nominations which didn't belong together, which only hurt their own aims, and there hasn't been any evidence presented that the nominations were done for political reasons (unless I missed something important upthread). If there's a problem here, it's inexperience, and Letsrun has been willing to acknowledge that in this discussion; this sanction wouldn't help them improve! Hatman31 (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, as others have said, there's no evidence Let'srun has done anything substantially wrong. This was the case even at the beginning of this thread and has become clearer as their AfDs have been closed. They might have made some BEFORE mistakes or otherwise failed to properly consider certain issues but their track record isn't that bad. In particular, there's no evidence of any inappropriate political motivation other than this happening at a time when Biden happens to be president. In fact the only concern about inappropriate political motivations seems to relate to the proposer Beyond My Ken's actions who by their own admission is making this proposal for political reasons. Per WP:RGW, Beyond My Ken is welcome to vote in the US (as many commentators have demonstrated, this often includes more local positions who can affect such things in various indirect fashions), lobby their senator or other senators or whatever else they want in the real world to fix whatever wrongs they see; what they shouldn't be doing is trying to topic ban people because our current guidelines and policies create outcomes they don't like because of what is going on in the real world. They are of course entitled to try to get these guidelines changed but an experienced editor would know that would involved making a proposal somewhere suitable (which is unlikely to be at ANI, although I don't mind User:Newyorkbrad etc starting discussion here) for the adoptions of these new guidelines or rarely simply by taking part in the AFDs and successfully making the argument (i.e. convincing others) that while yes current guidelines suggest a deletion, it would be better to instead to keep for reasons of X, Y and Z. Changing the guidelines definitely does not start with topic banning someone just because they are helping to enforce our current guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Further to my comment on changing how we handle articles on such appointments, since that seems to be a key part of Beyond My Ken's argument even if as I said, irrelevant until they've actually changed the guidelines. As someone who is probably significant more left-wing than the average American or Biden in many areas but is not American, I'd note that I was leaning oppose towards any such proposal for a change in guidelines at the start of this thread. Comments by Newyorkbrad and some others have given me pause for thought, but comments from most of those arguing for these changes often have done the opposite and this is especially the case for the way Beyond My Ken has approached this. Indeed one of the arguments for keeping these has been that most of them are likely to be notable sometime 'soon' because their appointments will be confirmed, or if they are rejected this would be significant enough to warrant an article. Yet ironically Beyond My Ken has came here to effectively even if I guess unintentionally argue the opposite. Because the mess in US politics many of these may simply never come up for vote, meaning that while there may be an article on that mess, there may be no articles on most of the individual minor level judge appointments affected by the mess who aren't notable individually for it. While the mess in US politics concerns me since it does have significant real world negative ramifications even for me in NZ, I'm not going to support us ignoring our normally notability standards just because this mess has created an unhappy situation. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for political purposes even when we agree with the politics. Again for Americans there are multiple avenues they can try to improve the situation. For non Americans there may be far less. But either way it doesn't mean we should do dumb stuff which will harm Wikipedia out of some misguided purpose. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - it is not an offense to AfD Biden-nominated judge articles, or any particular president’s. starship.paint (exalt) 11:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per all of the above. BilledMammal (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. A topic ban for nominating articles for deletion under existing notability guidelines is one of the most absurd proposals I've seen here, and the continued accusations by the proposer of political bias with no meaningful evidence border on a personal attack at this point. --Sable232 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Site ban for MIA Judges

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Starting above from @BilledMammal: at 11:57, 17 July 2023, you can see extensive evidence of off site escalation of the behavior in this thread. I'm not taking action as I'm definitely Involved given the long history at Cartwright, and actually had decent interaction with them until it all escalated here. Their behavior here was borderline blockable-not about the merits of the judges, but their interaction with Ravenswing et al. and this just endorses it. No ping given their repeated anger at being pinged. I think it's safe to assume they're watching. Star Mississippi 12:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added a notice to their user talk, as I actually am not sure they're actively watching and this thread is pretty difficult to navigate. Valereee (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Star Mississippi 12:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. There are no circumstances where an editor should tell another editor to kill themself; where the editor does that is irrelevant. BilledMammal (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Too much evidence says they are the same person. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Also, could an admin go through these links and see if they can be tied to the votes on the proposal by MIAJudges at Village pump? If so, clear case for a ban for those IPs/ Accounts as well. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wow. Just saw this and I am honestly a bit shaken to see some of the comments posted towards myself. Looks like the second link at #7 was from the IP at 15:47, 10 July 2023 as "Dequan" posts [[14]] shortly after, and that was the only support comment I replied to there. Let'srun (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, sorry about that, compadre. MIA's certainly spewed some bile in my direction, but he hasn't told me to kill myself. (Yet, anyway.) Don't blame you for being shaken. Ravenswing 13:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support cban: From falsifying sources, to off-wiki canvassing, to meritless claims, to their hostility over their conduct being in question, and now egging an editor on to kill himself? No. We do not need this person on the encyclopedia, and we'd indef a first-week newbie for a fraction of this much. Ravenswing 13:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Ravenswing. Watching this develop, there have been several moments where I've thought they've gone too far—but they're still here the next day! So, no, enough, end of. SN54129 13:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Ravenswing and Jack Sparrow. DoubleCross (‡) 13:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support Even if we can't conclusively show MIA is also Dequan, their behavior in this matter has been extremely confrontational and unwilling to listen to others, while demanding to be left alone. They clearly cannot behave cooperatively with other Wikipedians, and if they are Dequan, their behavior is beyond the pale. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• I have closed the related VPP discussion (permalink) with consensus against considering federal judiciary nominees as automatically notable. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• I'm going to Oppose a community-imposed ban for policy reasons: the information got here from something that feels uncomfortably close to outing., which shouldn't have happened. Unfortunately it did happen, and by the time it happened, so many people had moved on from this long thread that it wasn't noticed before this final discussion had already started. The stuff that was said was bad, but this person shouldn't have been outed. If they hadn't been outed, if instead someone had reported it to oversight, the oversighter might have gone ahead and blocked for what was said, but it wouldn't have been a community-imposed block and could be appealed through a normal block appeal. I'm sorry I didn't just block them earlier, frankly. Valereee (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think this does violate WP:OUTING; my reading of the policy suggests it does not include revealing pseudonyms that editors use on different sites. I'll add that it is relatively common for such revelations to occur; for example, we often see reports about editors canvassing on Reddit. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  I've edited. It's a grey area, for sure, but it just makes me uncomfortable to impose a cban for this series of events. Valereee (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  For us to bring forth any type of sanctions, their actions need to be tied to the account here.
  And I doubt MIAJudges can be protected under that grey area when they were using that platform to taunt and attack other wikipedians. The initial report was that of someone canvassing; MIAJudges brought the rest of the investigation upon themselves through the unacceptable messages relating to Wikipedia they posted on that platform knowing it was being watched. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's a fair point that they outed themselves by responding directly there to edits here. Valereee (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think their recent comments on their Talk confirm that they a) don't see a problem with their behavior b) don't appear to have an issue being connected with the external site. They've used prior accounts (per their own admission) that didn't appear to be a sock issue per the letter of LEGITSOCK, so I imagine we'll see them again even if this account is blocked. If they continue to contribute as they initially did, that could be fine. I'm not sure what went off the rails here. Star Mississippi 14:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  What went off the rails, I think, was that MIA's antics were brought to wide scrutiny. MIA falsified that source in the Garnett article two days before this whole ANI complaint started. I get the impression that the Cartwright article was something of a battle as well, and I wonder how many other of MIA's edits would prove questionable if examined. We also know that MIA was well aware of the provisions of NJUDGE before all those questionable rationales at AfD, because they were trying to get the guidelines changed back in September. [15][16] Ultimately, I think that MIA was never as clean as all of that. Ravenswing 18:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Correct on all counts, and the disengenous "Well why didn't you tell me that" about changing the guidelines.
  I initially took MIA's edits to be slightly pushy, but in good faith. They believed our guidelines were wrong but were editing collaboratively. When it came to endless badgering and edit warring (where they were not alone), it got exhausting. I believe the canvassing existed for months otherwise new accounts wouldn't know of the Cartwight article to come kick up a fuss. I don't know whether MIA was canvassed to it, or was the canvasser but I will say that at that article they refrained from the worst of the mudslinging as to motive. Star Mississippi 18:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Beyond that, there's another concept at play: if we're not allowed to ban someone because we're "outing" a pseudonym (which frankly shares not one fraction of similarity with genuine outing; even if the policy included them, which it does not, what harm could it possibly do me for you people to know that the handle I use on Reddit is 'Ravenswing77'?), then off-wiki canvassing should be permissible as well, because enforcing rules against that involves "outing" to the same degree. Ravenswing 17:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  It could harm you if you'd provided any identifying info on Reddit. Not saying you would, I don't think you're naive. But people can put things together. In various fora you've made remarks that, if combined, could probably identify you, someone could cobble them together and possibly figure out where you live, work, etc. Valereee (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  But a lot of people can be identified in the same way, with enough digging and work. I used to edit Wikipedia under my real name (and still blog under it), and only flipped when I realized just how much my name was all over the Web. As may be. The fact remains that if we can't touch off-wiki activity because of the worry people might find out another pseudonym, then off-wiki canvassing is likewise untouchable, and off-wiki harassment is untouchable, and off-wiki evidence of socking is untouchable. I doubt that's a mindshift that would serve much of anyone except bad actors like MIA. Ravenswing 18:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and unfortunately there are plenty of people willing to do the digging and work. I'm not arguing with you, just agreeing that it's an issue for those of us who came into the web before we all realized this. My kids came in late enough that they've been able to adjust for it. At least so far, who knows what's coming next. Valereee (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing you're dropping too many hints, better redact and get it revdel'ed incase someone comes sniffing long after :D Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Can you clarify, @CapnJackSp? Valereee (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Things like their reddit username and previous editing on wiki being personal details. A couple absent minded posts later on could tie them to IRL stuff quite easily. Just advising out of an abundance of caution. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - their actions and unbridled advocacy are not compatible with Wikipedia. starship.paint (exalt) 14:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - Time to close this, probably? I doubt there is going to be any serious opposition to this. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HazaraHistorian

HazaraHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe I've given this user more than enough WP:ROPE.

I suspect it's mainly thanks to their false belief (this is not even close to the mainstream consensus in scholarship, not sure where they're getting it from) that the Hazaras are basically "Turks" [17] which have led to much of this disruption.

• Yesterday they added that this Hazara tribe was descended from the Karluk Turks under the guise of a citation, except the citation mentioned no such thing. I.e. they inserted their own personal opinion/interpretation.[18]. They previously attempted to the same here without a source even [19]. Simultaneously, a random IP tried to do the same here [20]. That same IP tried more or less to add the same WP:OR POV edit of HazaraHistorian [21] here [22], trying to connect the Hazara to the Khazar Turks. Moreover, a mere day after I reverted HazaraHistorian for inserting a primary source [23], the IP conveniently knew of the rule, removing info about the Mongol connection of the Hazara [24]. In other words, that IP is probably theirs.
• [25] Once again their own words under the guise of a citation.
• [26] Removed info that was heavily sourced in the body of the article.

Based on this, I would wager there are probably more edits where they have mixed sources with their own words.

And here are some of their grim remarks (WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS):

• "Why is there an Iranian editing Turkic pages and calling them Persian? Wtf is this Wikipedia so biased"

• "So the HistoryOfIran guy removes cited sources but allows un cited sources that say Ghurids were Tajiks 💀💀💀" (spoiler, I have done no such thing, that mention of me was completely random as well, hadn't been in contact with them for some time or done anything controversial in that article, unless reverting random IPs altering/removing sourced info counts)

• "Literally no sources of it saying it’s a Tajik dynasty, please stop disturbing pages and abusing your admin privileges" (spoiler, everything was sourced in the body of the article, which they couldn't even bother to check, or maybe they did see it and WP:JDLI followed)

When I told them (again) to stop attacking me [27], they acted like any other mature and collaborative Wiki user and responded with a head exploding emoji [28] --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll wait for HazaraHistory to respond to this thread, but I'm not seeing much which inspires confidence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The book I cited literally mentions some Hazaras being Karluk, it don’t know if you can tell, but Qarluk is Karluk but with a q, without any sources you can see the connection. I also have DNA prove from Vaha duo distancing but idk if Wikipedia allows them to be uploaded. He adds that the Ghurid Dynasty is of Tajik origin, which is really disputed and there are many sources that say it is a Turkic Dynasty, I can provide them too. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Another thing is I only have/use 1 IP address, I never used a different ip to make edits. I even didn’t use a different ip when I was banned earlier. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

For the Ghaznavid edit I’m not sure if I did anything wrong about the Middle East part, but I’m sure I didn’t do anything wrong with the Karluk part since I cited 2 sources of Ghaznavids being Karluk, if he doesn’t know that it’s clear that Ghaznavids were of Kalruk slave origin. HazaraHistorian (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you also ask him why he put the deletion request template on the Karakhanid-Sassanid War page, other than the reason of it being against what he likes. HazaraHistorian (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Before Bloop was sock blocked, the interaction between them and Hazara was triggering my spidey sense. Dropping the analyzer if helpful to anyone assessing. Note, I'm not saying HIstorian is a sock, I just think there was shenanigans present before Bloop was IDed as a sock. Star Mississippi 20:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  IK bloop, he has a TikTok account that makes racist vidoes against Hazaras, (Redacted). HazaraHistorian (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Today was yet another WP:OR POV addition made by HazaraHistorian, continuing their attempt to connect the Hazaras to certain Turkic groups and vice-versa [29] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Did you even see the picture? You keep saying tried to connect which is funny. You clearly have no understanding of Hazara tribes and their origin. HazaraHistorian (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

And yet you were reverted again by another user for WP:OR and non-WP:RS [30]. I would advise you to stop commenting on me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You advise me not to comment on you but you comment on me HazaraHistorian (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

HoI is commenting on your behavior. And you're doing a great job of demonstrating that your behavior is in conflict with Wikipedia's policies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@HazaraHistorian The matter at hand is whether you understand Wikipedia policies such as WP:Reliable sources and WP:No original research. Your edits appear to demonstrate that you do not. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

HazaraHistorian's recent addition of "Origins" to the Ghaznavid article. The talk page discussion received no response, after I quoted from the source they provided(which made no mention of the middle east) and then I provided sources stating unequivocally the origins of Sabuktigin(ie. Ghaznavids). I would have to say HazaraHistorian does not understand original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Uzbek.Patriot101, a blocked user and sock just posted this in response to my ANI thread [31] about their random WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA, where they said the following; "I know who HistoryofIran is because I also have another friend who is a editor and wiki editor HazaraHistorian he told me about HistoryofIran.". Uzbek.Patriot101 is also the sock [32] of Darkl1yy, who created the Karakhanid-Samanid war [33], whose deletion thread HazaraHistorian protested against here in the ANI thread: "Can you also ask him why he put the deletion request template on the Karakhanid-Sassanid War page, other than the reason of it being against what he likes." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  sigh We're going to wind up with another WP:CTOP around Turkey eventually... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 and incivility

Hello. A few days ago, I opened a requested move at Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). While I have seen some valid arguments opposing my proposed move to Bill O'Reilly and the idea of it being a primary topic (the only other page that exists under this name is one about an Australian cricketer), one user at the talk page, User:HiLo48, has felt the need to make fun of others who disagree with them, making comments about how they will "mock any comment that shows an ignorance of cricket," as well as calling those who lack knowledge about cricket "parochial Americans." Personally, I believe this is unacceptable and violates the core policy of WP:CIVILITY, and while I have tried to explain to them that they should be commenting specifically on why the move itself wouldn't work, and not make fun of others who disagree, they seem to be set in their ways about mocking the sentiments of those who disagree with them. I didn't want to take this here, but their comments about how, among other things, American contributors should "learn more about the world outside of [their] borders" seem unnecessarily rude, and they certainly have no place in a page move discussion, regardless of how "ridiculous" it might be to them. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

JeffSpaceman, I'd just rise above HiLo48's potshots, as tedious as they may be. Continuing to engage with this person will waste your time because, unlike you, HiLo48 is probably enjoying this fight and your discomfort on some level.

The page move decision will be on consensus, not the volume or tenor or one person's posts.

I'm not an admin; they may decide otherwise. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice -- I think I will take it and stop engaging with them. I am trying to get through to them and assume good faith (as I try to with a lot of people on here), but that clearly just isn't working. Thank you for your kind words. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"HiLo48 is probably enjoying this fight and your discomfort on some level." Basically, HiLo48 is behaving like a troll, intentionally trying to provoke you. Please try not to answer in kind, because emotional outbursts never end well in Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment JeffSpaceman has also fallen for the classic trap of not checking the archives before proposing a move that has been shot down on multiple occasions. HiLo48 may be slightly glib at talk but the truth is that the American newsreader Bill O'Reilly simply isn't globally relevant enough to make this move. At best he's a washed up former debate partner to Jon Stewart and a generally disgraced journalist. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I will admit fault at not checking the archives, since I tend to just check whatever is currently on the talk page (something that typically works for me on pages that aren't updated as relatively regularly as O'Reilly's, but clearly didn't work this time). At the same time, I don't believe that HiLo48's snarking is a good way to go about it, since civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Personally, I think that there are better ways of getting the opinion that they hold across (including in ways that other users who have opposed have used as reasoning). JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

While I doubt that this thread will result in any sort of formal action being taken, it would be nice if an uninvolved admin could go to Hilo's talk page and explain why it is not appropriate for them to mock any comment that shows an ignorance of cricket or refer to other editors as parochial Americans. These are bright-line violations of our civility policy and they clearly run afoul of the collaborative spirit required here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm willing to block people for bludgeoning, incivility, or discrimination based on where someone is from. I don't really see that here, though. I just see someone threatening to do that. If that happens, I'll block or topic ban. I'm tired of dramamongering in articles related to American politics, and I think maybe the topic area needs to be cleared out. If anyone is tempted to engage in dramamongering, they should consider this before posting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, are you saying that HiLo48’s comments are OK and that JeffSpaceman is to blame? His proposal, even if ultimately not the best, certainly is within the realm of reasonable. It seems tendered in good faith. His reactions to HiLo48 seem civil. HiLo48’s don’t. As for American politics, I’m sure the majority of Americans would also like the drama dialed down in the U.S.

As for your comment, ”I think maybe the topic area [American politics] needs to be cleared out” - what are your intentions? A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Great. More dramamongering. Did JeffSpaceman threaten to bludgeon or mock anyone? If not, what I wrote probably doesn't apply. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: No; but they don't seem too fond of being reminded of their own responsibilities in the area; I imagine it's more satisfying getting one's opponents hung out to dry at ANI. While they can do what they like with AC/DS notices, of course, it's always interesting to see how positive a response is. Or not, as the case might be. SN54129 16:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, they did snap back on Simonm223's talk page, and I interpreted "I am not going to explain this a second time" as enough of a threat to check whether or not they were an administrator (to see if they would or could follow through on such a threat), but I agree that none of this rises to the level of warranting action. While "parochial" (as in Wiktionary's description, "characterized by an unsophisticated focus on local concerns to the exclusion of wider contexts") is absolutely a correct descriptor for Americans of the belief that their pet newsbarker exceeds in notability a top athlete in a sport of intense popularity pretty well everywhere else on the planet, it's still an insult even if in jest, and Wikipedians should not be throwing it at other Wikipedians for any reason. All of that being said, calling attention to drama is rarely a suitable approach to squelching it. Can we all agree to go do something else? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I will say that I shouldn't have said the "I am not going to explain this a second time." I think I was just angry with what you correctly point out is an insult that should not be used against other users on here. I appreciate your forthright approach here, Ivanvector. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I left Hilo a note and I hope they'll consider it. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Here's a question I have to ask though - and I know it's irrelevant to the general policies at a RM discussion, but this sort of thing always bugs me. When someone types "Bill O'Reilly" into Wikipedia, looking for the (incredibly famous) cricketer or one of the other people at the dab page - do we really want to say to them "no, the one you're looking for is this guy who if you don't live in the USA you've probably never heard of, and who is best known for inventing sensational news stories and abusing women"? I'd say we probably don't. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"" "I'm tired of dramamongering in articles related to American politics" O'Reilly is not particularly relevant to politics, American or otherwise. He is just a former television presenter and a notorious hack writer, whose main claim to fame is a series of scandals concerning non-consensual sex. Dimadick (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I accept the premise. I have no stake in the RM, but you're asserting without proving that the cricketer is more famous than the media personality. Leaving aside any question of morality (e.g. who should be better known), how do we know that? The page views point the other way. The media personality article exists in 32 languages, against 9 for the cricketer. If this speaks to the outsize influence of American media on the rest of the world, then I apologize, but we have to take the world as we find it. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  However, are we a popularity site or a work of reference? As I asked in the RM, should a musical act that lasted all of seven years be the primary topic over a millennia-old foundational spiritual concept, just because of pageviews? Zaathras (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, you said it yourself. I don't think anyone would make that argument. If they did, I don't think it would convince many people. The example is inapposite. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Editors are literally making that argument now, to rename the article based only on pageview arguments. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  With Bill O'Reilly yes, we're speaking of two men, one alive, one dead, who lived within a few decades of each other. Pageviews may well be relevant since we can't evaluate lasting importance. Your analogy, involving a millennia-old foundational spiritual concept and a recent rock band, doesn't speak to this issue, and that's what I was responding to. By all means, if Nirvana gets moved on the strength of pageviews I'll reconsider. Mackensen (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, in a way we can. The cricketer last played an international match 77 years ago and is still talked about as one of the best players in the second-most popular sport in the world. I'd be very surprised if the "political commentator" that has more pageviews (because controversy and being American) is likely to be remembered 77 years after his last rant on the Internet - wouldn't you? Indeed, if pageviews weren't being taken into account here, I'd say the cricketer should be at the base article name. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ehh we’ll cross that bridge in c. 77 years Dronebogus (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  In 77 years, I hope someone still remembers Bill O'Reilly's exceptional performance in the field of falafel-based sexual harassment. --JBL (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  ...I don't even want to ask. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise: Oh, this is so worth knowing about :). See the end of section 78 of the first harassment lawsuit (NSFW) against him. --17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) JBL (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Mackensen: I'm fairly sure I've heard a number of people making arguments that the programming language should be the primary topic for Java based mostly on page view type arguments. At the very least people have said there is no primary topic. Edit: I initially posted this on my phone so didn't bother to check the history but now I'm not I checked and sure enough it was about 14 months ago that a move was proposed on that premise [34]. True the specific claim of the programming language being the primary topic got FWIW no support (the closer said "Pretty much a snowball close", I don't actually see anyone other than the proposer who supported it). There was however a bit more support there being no primary topic (albeit at least some was abandoned) and you can see the several previous proposals listed in the history which again were mostly of the no primary topic variety but with some the programming language is the primary topic variety. While you might argue the failure of these RMs proves that the community will get it right, I'd argue that the persistence of these good faith but clearly flawed proposals does demonstrate why people tend to get annoyed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC) 08:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne Yes. An assumption of good faith means that a clearly flawed RM springs from ignorance, not malice. It's an opportunity to educate, not belittle, and the community generally gets move requests right, or at least not wrong. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Mackensen: I don't disagree on the need to educate. OTOH, it's also true that editors, especially editors with some experience, really need to consider some variant of WP:BEFORE, so when making a proposal that common sense would suggest has surely been made before, really should look into the previous discussions and consider how likely it is is things will be different this time. And if they can't find them, perhaps rather than jumping straight into an RM, first asking hey am I missing something, why are our articles titled this way? More importantly though IMO your earlier comment makes it sounds like such things never happen, no one ever proposes them and they will never pass. In reality we have IMO clear evidence they are at least proposed. And actually I'm fairly sure some cases involving more minor examples have passed. Some of these may have eventually been fixed. Some of them are probably still like that and may one day be fixed but haven't been yet. There's no reason to think the contrary since flawed community decisions happen all the time especially when there is low participation and the significance may not be obvious. Or to put it a different way while HiLo48's comments were IMO way way over the line (as unfortunately they often are) and exceedingly unhelpful, your comments here were IMO far less extreme but at least partly in the same vein. I mean if you want to argue that the Bill O'Reilly case is dissimilar, that's fine you're entitled to make such an argument. But to be so dismissive of the good faith concerns of others as you did above is also unhelpful when experience with Wikipedia should tell you even before I provided an IMO reasonably equivalent example that it has happened before, and will happen again. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's why I said my comment is probably irrelevant to policy, I was more theorising about an IAR "what should we do" scenario. Having said that, looking at the RM the status quo is likely to be upheld anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Generally speaking, yes, we do want that. We're not here to judge (and especially not to influence) what are the most likely to be searched topics; our role is, once the most likely topic is reasonably determined, to get the most readers to the information they're looking for with the least amount of effort. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC already covers the hypothetical case that Bill O'Reilly the Fox News personality is a much more (like, a lot more) likely topic amongst readers globally than Bill O'Reilly the accomplished cricketer, but that's not the case here. Disregarding the guideline over a morality panic would not be a good use of IAR. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I've both disagreed with and defended HiLo48 on and off for about 14 years. It may be cultural for them to have rough-and-tumble conversations, including with friends. I find them to be refreshingly blunt without all of the underlying vitrol and clever wiki-warfare that underlies most of our drama situations. Not saying that that should make anything OK, but it's useful to understand it in that context. North8000 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Conversely, IMHO HiLo48 should also calibrate. Understand that what may be OK routine rough and tumble conversation in other venues might be the equivalent of tossing hand grenades in the Wikipedia venue. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

An interesting, unusual dynamic in this dispute: each Bill O'Reilly is very important and noteworthy to a passionate, large group (hundreds of millions). Almost every member of one group has no interest in or even knows of the other Bill O'Reilly. The circles in the Venn Diagram are huge, flamboyantly colored and barely touch, let alone overlap.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that William Joseph O'Reilly is deceased (and therefore incapable of political commentary), obviously the best resolution here would be for Wikipedia editors to convince William James O'Reilly Jr. to take up cricket. --JBL (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

How many times does this topic come up? Surely at some point we need to do something. I've dealt with this editor many times and although I can get a little dry in my humour, at least I play the ball and not the man. I find wikipolicy generally settles disputes, not raising one's voice and making discussion so unpleasant that the abuser wins by default.

If we use this sort of procedure to create our encyclopaedia then it shows and well-meaning newbies are scared off. On that point, HiLo seems to take a particular delight in "welcoming" new editors by making comments about their mistakes, often using some sort of passive aggression to boot home the message and making assumptions about motives, if not morals.

I appreciate the sort of wikignome work he does tirelessly and without complaint but perhaps a little more tolerance of fellow editors wouldn't hurt. Can we get a commitment to be nicer, or are we going to be reading the same old anti-American diatribes again and again? Doesn't that come under the heading of racism? Do we tolerate that sort of thing? --Pete (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I said somewhere in the sea of words above that throwing fuel on the fire is a poor way to deal with drama, and calling anything that happened here "racism" is exactly that. It is a very long way off from racism to note the documented tendency of the archetypal American to be disinterested or entirely unaware of the world happening outside of their own borders, as discussed for example in The Hill, The benefits of American disinterest in world affairs; Washington Post, Do Americans care about the rest of the world?; The University of Buffalo, Researcher says Americans are "deluded" regarding what they know about the rest of the world; Pew Research Center, The problem of American exceptionalism; Council on Foreign Relations, Americans lack knowledge of international issues yet consider them important; or Forbes, The American public's indifference to foreign affairs. It is also not racism, and frankly not a personal attack, to challenge an argument on the basis of it being grounded in this noted American parochialism, though as I said using it as an ad hominem crosses a very bright line. That said: calling this incident racism is just inflammatory rhetoric, whether you intended it or not, and not only does it not help to solve anything happening here, it also cheapens genuine discussions about real, systemic, institutionalized oppression. That is in fact an incredibly serious issue, and the term deserves not to be thrown around casually and haphazardly like this. I must also note here that baselessly accusing editors of racism crosses that same very bright line.

As for HiLo48, they're aware of this discussion, and hopefully will absorb the criticism of their approach (although their most recent responses seem to indicate they instead feel justified in their "blunt" approach, which this non-American administrator suggests they should not). If they're also causing problems for new editors I have not seen evidence of it, but if they are they need to knock it off yesterday. Many an editor who felt their collection of contributions outweighed the civility policy have had that opinion noted in their block log. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just sweep it all under the carpet. Again. Until some well-meaning editor runs afoul of some harsh comments. Again.

I chose that word carefully. Here is an extract from WP:NPA:

Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

The colour of one's skin or the colour of one's passport; in the eyes of Wikipedia it is all one when derogatory remarks are directed against another editor. This is one of our fundamental pillars.

Americans are a diverse bunch. I have many American friends and family and for every one of them who disagrees with my politics there are others who are shoulder to shoulder. Some are insular, some are well-versed in the world, some are this and some are that.

I make the point that Americans who are also Wikipedia editors might be reasonably accepted as having views and attitudes that are broader and better-informed than the average. I'll accept that many Americans are insular and ignorant of the wider world. But that is definitely not true of many Americans of my acquaintance and I suggest that American Wikipedians are more open to other views, other eyes, other minds than the mass, simply by being part of the project. There is a degree of self-selection in play.

I am chided for adding fuel to the fire. A valid point, but if so, then just what has HiLo been doing for years and years but just exactly that? There seems to be no capacity for acceptance and repentance and understanding on just how hurtful his remarks might be. Passions rise, discussion becomes inflamed, and we end up dealing with the fire here on a regular basis.

I'm not seeking to raise the temperature here with ill-advised comments. I'm looking to find out the truth and I think a big part of the truth in general Wikipedia editing is disruption caused by heated personal attacks. What goes on in this forum is - by definition - out of the main stream of routine editing. Can we at least work towards making Wikipedia a safer, more welcoming, cooperative place for editors of all levels of experience and nationality? --Pete (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that HiLo’s comments are obnoxious and casually xenophobic, but they barelyrise to the level of offensive conduct. What are we even supposed to do here? Dronebogus (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It's the long term behaviour. Offensive to other editors, unable to accept there is a problem, unwilling to accept that there is a community setting the standards and enforcing the rules.

We accept all manner of views and reasons for editing and styles of participation. That's fine. His participation is as welcome as anyone else's.

But we can't have someone ignoring one of our basics - WP:NPA - if they also set themselves up as a sort of wikipoliceman as this guy does with his "welcomes" to new editors who offend him for whatever reason.

He's not participating here in this forum because he knows that if he says nothing, it will all go away and he can keep on driving his own bus the same way it's happened dozens of times before. Until it happens again.

I'd like to see a commitment to lift his game, and I'd like to see that backed up by the community of editors who don't want to see the disruptive behaviour continue.

I don't know how that's going to happen, though. Look at his user page. He is one of those people who melts down when shown that the facts contradict their opinions and it is just heartbreaking to see such anguish.

I don't have the deft touch to steer him calmly into safe waters. As a diplomat I make a good hockey player. --Pete (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

HiLo's behavior at the requested move was pretty uncivil. He said that Jeff has a "standard American lack of knowledge of cricket and lack of respect for history", as well as is a "parochial American". Directly aimed at Jeff. He called Jeff lacking in knowledge because he's an American. That's a personal attack. HiLo treats the discussion as if having deep knowledge of a subject gives your !vote more weight, and when Iamreallygoodatcheckers said subject knowledge wasn't relevant, he called that "wikilawyering". SWinxy (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

HiLo48: courtesy break

Before we go running off and closing this thread as no action taken, I want to attest to HiLo's behavior being extremely difficult to work with at WP:ITN. He seems completely incapable of having any sort of civil discussion where he doesn't immediately erupt into bursts of all-caps and shouting. A difference in user conduct is to be expected given differing cultural backgrounds, but some of these diffs go beyond the pale:

[35]You clearly cannot read!!!! My opposition is NOT because the event is only relating to a single country. It's because it's about one PARTICULAR country, the USA!!!! I simply cannot imagine this getting any support at all if it happened in any other country. It's pure and blatant US-centrism. - Edit summary: "Stupid argument!!! Can't you read????"

[36]Not another one!!!!! We are getting blurb nominations every few days at present. WE NEED BETTER RULES!!!!!

[37]IT CANNOT BE PROVEN!!!!!! You have been told why. You are asking for the impossible. You are proving nothing with that demand. Read what others say carefully please, think about it, then bugger off!!! - Edit summary reads likewise

[38]WHY ARE THE ADMINS IGNORING THIS??? Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. My question is a serious one.

[39]In a time critical environment, ignoring it for that long simply isn't good enough. You want the glory of being an Admin? Do your job!!!! If you can't do it, something really needs to change.

Just a few examples. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s pretty embarrassing conduct that would get a newbie blocked. I think a topic ban from ITN might be necessary. Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean yes, ITN/C has its problems. Yes, lots of people don't like ITN and think it ought to be removed from the Main Page. Yes, you can argue there's just as much a civil POV pushing problem going on that page as there is with HiLo's incivility. However, if you look back in history to when he was previously topic banned from ITN for similar comments, this rises to the level of chronic activity. Or is this actually allowable as long as he's telling someone to "bugger off" and not actually calling them a slur? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I read HiLo’s talk page reply anc rant archive userpage and it’s pretty clear that, despite assertions to the contrary, they hold some chauvinistic views towards Americans. Their overall attitude seems combative an incomparable with Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@WaltCip: I looked in the usual places but don't see any record of HiLo48 having been banned from ITN in the past. Do you have a link for that sanction? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Here you go. It was a very long time ago, admittedly, back in 2012 and I had thought it was sooner than that. I'm not certain whether this would lessen the significance of it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

One thing that has changed is he is no longer calling people "fucking morons" so in that sense, this current behavior a significant improvement as it no longer includes direct personal attacks. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also found these:

• HiLo and Pregnancy Ban Proposal (ANI October 2011, archived without closure)
• HiLo48 civility (ANI July 2012, ITN topic ban imposed)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HiLo48 (RFC/U October 2012, closed because HiLo48 refused to participate)
• User:HiLo48 (ANI October 2012, HiLo48's incivility noted as "unnecessary, tiresome and counterproductive" but closed for no admins willing to act after reasonable time)
• HiLo48 block review (ANI February 2013: HiLo48 had been blocked "indefinite (or until this editor demonstrates s/he understands it's not ok to refer to other editors as "nutters" or "fools" per WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE"; indef block endorsed as noted by the closing admin but they reduced it to 7 days anyway))
• Personal Attacks by HiLo48 against Collingwood26 (ANI November 2013, HiLo48 blocked for personal attacks, then unblocked; OOP indeffed)
• HiLo48's incivility (ANI April 2014, closed with no action)
• Personal attacks from HiLo48 (ANI October 2014, closed with no action)

Note that these incidents were all within a span of roughly 3 years between 2011-2014, and their block log also mirrors this period. A common theme in these is a closing admin noting the problematic behaviour but referring the discussion to RFC/U, which was a handy catch-22 as RFC/U would not consider complaints if the user being discussed did not participate, and so in many of these cases action should have been taken but was not. However, there have been no other discussions (other than one which was frivolous, and this one) and no more blocks since December 2014, which suggests either that HiLo48 learned something from being reported so many times, or that the community got tired of reporting an unblockable and having admins pass the buck.

Their recent behaviour at ITN (from WaltCip's diffs) suggests they're returning to their decade-past disruptive outbursts, but it would be a stretch to call this a pattern based on four edits over three months (one of the diffs is a duplicate). I think all that's warranted here is a warning that civility is required regardless of who your opponent is or what you believe their motivations are, and that further incidents will result in blocks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

In general long-term productive editors are given a lot of leeway for obvious bad-faith lashings-out compared to newbies who might get an insta-indef. while in some ways this is understandable (thousands of good edits to one personal attack is a net positive; 100 edits entirely of angry POV warring isn’t) it’s also disturbing that we’re starting to let things like literal vandalism slide from experienced users Dronebogus (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That edit was 7 months ago, but if you wanted to bring it up there's already a thread about that editor on this page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

…and as you can see it’s closed. I was bringing it up as an example of the abysmal standards we have for behavior from well-established editors. Dronebogus (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That example was instantly self-reverted. Do you have other examples? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter that it was self-reverted, in fact that’s basically system gaming because an experienced (or even novice) editor would know there is zero tolerance for vandalism on WP. So vandalism and subsequent “lol just kidding” is still vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This goes back for a while. I only posted those as a current example, but HiLo has recently been posting on and off on ITN for more than a year. This is a sample of some of his behavior and absolutely does not represent the totality of his behavior at ITN/C, which I could certainly compile if I had the time in the day to do so. But if you think a warning - a FIRM warning - will do then so be it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that they keep editing while this discussion continues, but they did not show up here. I am afraid all wishes that they take the criticism onboard are wishful thinking until they show up here and acknowledge the existence of the issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that HiLo48 is watching this. Maybe they're too humiliated to participate? I could sure see why. Their peers are wondering out loud if their future contributions are worth the aggravation of any further bad behaviour.

In any event, if they like editing Wikipedia, they should understand that many people are now aware of their negative behaviour and watching. They should understand they've just had their "last bite at the apple" before serious sanctions, even an indefinite block.

They've played their last remaining "but they're a productive editor" pass.

On the plus side, nobody's asking them to do anything exceptional -- just be polite like most everyone else. That's all. They can even secretly despise each one of the 335 million Americas alive on the planet -- they just have to keep it to themselves and treat them like everyone else. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course he's watching this discussion. He doesn't participate for two reasons:

1. If he doesn't say anything, it will get set aside with no action taken. Like always.

2. He's pants at polite discussion. If someone contradicts him - like with facts and diffs and stuff - he blows up and melts down and lashes out. That sort of behaviour doesn't help when people are discussing his behaviour.

Perhaps he might be induced to make a statement on his talk page or similar protected area where he can feel secure in simply removing responses he feels are upsetting him? -- Pete (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• I was introduced to the move discussion through this ANI and I have to agree that HiLo48's general attitude towards those with whom they disagree is problematic.[40] It's weird to me that a simple move discussion is contentious, but HiLo48's comments certainly haven't helped the tone despite multiple editors asking for people to tone it down. This behavior shouldn't be ignored. Nemov (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well that’s… (sunglasses) just not cricket. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• I just want to highlight this comment in particular, which was made after most of this ANI discussion. I know this is a foreign concept to most Americans, so they need to defer to people who do know about it. I don't know if this is HiLo's intent, but I read this as saying certain people shouldn't be allowed to participate in a discussion or that their input is less valuable on the basis of their nationality, which would be a bright red line on xenophobia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  He didn't say they couldn't participate or that their input is less valuable, just that American editors need to acknowledge their limitations. Like trying to impose the American concept of a "bright red line"; most will recognise this as a gaff, inadvertently proving Hilo's point, but many people around the would would see it as an example of American cultural imperialism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah I agree, I would personally not have tried to evoke the silly concept of a "bright red line", which to me evokes thoughts of some recent events that happened on the international stage when America was playing world police. If there is a case to be made against HiLo, this isn't it. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  ...What limitations? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  That most of them don't know about a global sport. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  A global sport that’s only played in the commonwealth because Britain introduced it. Let’s drop the “imperialism” natter. Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence, and the commonwealth is still all over the world and quite significant; I don't get your point here. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  The second part was kind of a response to Hawkeye7, it was admittedly kind of unclear. But I think we’re digressing too much over whether it’s socially acceptable to be ignorant of cricket and not focusing on the fact that this user is frequently uncivil and combative. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

HiLo: How to fix

HiLo hasn't commented; presumably he thinks it's fine to abuse other editors based on nationality.

Because we never do anything about it. --Pete (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I was prepared to say that I too was of two minds on this when reading the initial portion of the thread. On the one hand, context is king, as the old saying goes, and I can see some circumstances in which the comments that are quoted by the OP could be taken in a affable light. But then I actually went and looked at the context. First HiLo apparently said "standard American lack of respect for history" followed up by "That too is a standard response from parochial Americans. It's NOT an insult. It's an invitation to you to learn more about the world outside your borders" I'm sorry, but how is this not a textbook WP:PA of one of the worst sorts? This is literaly item number one on the list of "types of comments that are never acceptable" (emphasis in original), according to the section of the policy "What is considered to be a personal attack?":

"Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race ... ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors."

This is not sassy "glibness", or blunt straight talk: it's just plain small-minded, bigoted regurgitation of tired stereotypes that serve no function other than to incite outrage in others and signal the speaker's general small-mindedness and willingness to reach for the most offensive representation of another editor's motives: that is a presumption of sheer ignorance on the part of your rhetorical opponent. This kind of behaviour has no place on this project and editors (American or otherwise) are very right to be upset with this and concerned about what it says that we are not nipping this sort of thing in the bud the second the first pair of community eyes falls on it. Do we really not have a single admin here willing to block such a brightline violation of WP:CIV? That surprises me, because there are names attached to mops that I respect in this discussion already. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

And let me add that such would be my opinion if I was basing it just upon those comments initially alluded to by the OP. To see it followed by those additional diffs that can only be described as histrionic meltdowns? This seems to be an editor with tonal and self control issues that should have been addressed a long time ago. Indeed, I'm also pretty certain this is not nearly HiLo's first time here when it comes to this kind of thing; I did not participate in previous occasions his conduct was brought here, that I can recall, but I do feel confident in saying I've seen something like "HiLo and civility" in a discussion header here at least a dozen times over the years. Stopping to look at the conduct this time, it's clear why.

I'm not familiar enough with the overall conduct to feel comfortable making a proposal for an appropriate preventative sanction, but if someone else does and it's reasonable, I am prepared to strongly consider support. HiLo could have shown up to defend this cluster of behaviour: their choice not to means I have to assume the pattern will persist if we don't do something. A block, TBANS...something seems called for. We can't let our editors/community members run around making these kinds of comments, stoking nationalistic rhetoric and division, in plain view of everyone. I try to avoid emotive appeals whenever possible, especially in a context like ANI, but honestly, it's an embarrassment that we even have to debate this. If these kinds of comments don't get an administrative or community response, I don't know what the point of having WP:CIV and WP:PA are. I really was starting to feel the community was turning a corner on "popularity armor" when it came to these kinds of issues, but the fact that this hasn't been acted on in the last couple of weeks makes me wonder.

So if an admin is not willing to step in on this on their own onus, let's have an !vote, and we'll see what the community thinks about the idea of casually dismissing another editor by talking about "ignorant/myopic Americans" (or "loud Italians" or "drunken Irish" or "defeatist French" or "violent Africans" or "calculating Asians" or any other easy, stupid, hateful stereotype that we might slot in there). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's a random community opinion for you. I don't think much of the idea of casually dismissing an entire race of people in words like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stolen_Generations&diff=prev&oldid=853625286. This is from an editor who later tried to shoehorn a poor quality source into the Stolen Generations article: [[41]].

Yes, anyone who's been around for a while knows that HiLo and Skyring don't get on. It looks to me like this is dragging on because of Skyring's agitation to get HiLo censured by any means possible. Good on HiLo for not taking the bait.

The notion that Americans have little interest in the world outside their borders is a cheap stereotype but isn't racist. It's well known that Americans are one of the tiniest minnows in international cricket. It's no more racist to point that out than it is to point out the absence of an even vaguely competitive gridiron team in Australia.

But basically we have two editors to contend with here. HiLo is blunt, abrasive and a net positive to Wikipedia. Skyring is polite, calm and a net negative to Wikipedia. Are we here to build an encylopaedia, or are we here to have a dinner party? Daveosaurus (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA is a policy, you don't just dismiss with with "are we here to have a dinner party?" and excuse poor behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I've heard about Skyring (btw why is his sig "Pete"?)—'s poor behavior, but I have not seen why they are a net negative while HiLo is a net positive. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Some people have too much “fun” creating screwy signatures. Hence why mine has always been the default. Dronebogus (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm more asking why it doesn't violate WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It pretty clearly does but that’s the least of our concerns here Dronebogus (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Can’t we just censure both for casual racism/xenophobia? Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, or if there is no appetite for that for this particular user at this moment in time (which is unfortunate but not entirely unheard of a when a long term editor acts in a thoroughly unacceptable way but makes the conservative tactical choice not to comment here), then the least that should be done is to give a final warning, so the next time it happens, the community's lack of tolerance for any further such is a matter of record. That shouldn't be necessary, mind you, when we are talking about a bigoted screed, but it's better to get half the job done in this thread than nothing at all. (Bearing in mind that I for one would still consider supporting a limited and tailored sanction to get HiLo's attention, but don't get the feeling that's where this is headed). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus above to treat this as a final warning. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope the closer reaches the same conclusion. I'm still pretty concerned about the milktoast response from the community here, given the specifics of the conduct. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If this is the final warning it must be logged in at the talk page of the user as such. (Not sure why this is final since they have been blocked before, but fine). If it is not logged we will be back here in a couple of months. Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Daveosaurus, that reasoning is flawed in numerous ways. First off, it's a false choice to suggest we can't address the conduct of both editors in a situation like this. Second, I don't see the value in the suggestion that we should downgrade one editor's clear pattern of abusive language for another--least of all in this kind of area--because it happened to coexist with similar policy violations. Further, as a purely rhetorical/policy matter, it doesn't matter that most Americans take little interest in cricket: the argumentation techniques employed by HiLo here are clearly just stirring the shit: you are meant to comment on the content, the sources, and the policy factors when discussing work on the encyclopedia, not opining on what you perceive to be your rhetorical opponent's failings or gaps in knowledge: even if he had just kept his comments to "Americans know nothing about cricket", that would still be a weak, unconvincing, and problematic discussion style under our policies that should be immediately discouraged. These kinds of comments can do nothing to resolve the content issue and only serve to drag out and personalize things.

But further, and crucially, HiLo went well beyond such unwanted dead-end comments straight into the territory of nationalistic invective. What he said was unambiguously unacceptable: again, it is literally the first, paradigmatic example given at WP:PA for comments that are never acceptable. I don't see the point in arguing whether this is Racist with a capital R; for what it's worth, that's not the first descriptor I would use either (though it's certainly in the same family of observation, make no mistake). It's bigotry, no matter how you slice the rest of the semantic label: the ascribing of supposed personal flaws to a monolithic group. Regardless, it suffices that it is unambiguously against policy, unquestionably a bad faith behaviour, and clearly WP:disruptive. We regularly block on sight new users exhibiting this exact conduct, and I never see any hand-wringing about whether their behaviour was "that bad" when we do.

This combined with the other demonstrations here of a longtime pattern of incivility and losing his cool in a frankly childish manner when confronted with opposition paint the picture of someone who does not respect our community behavioural guidelines, in that the shortfalls between their conduct and what is expected of them has clearly been pointed out to them numerous times. Inaction is clearly enabling this to persist, and the community has recently had declining patience for the "net positive" argument for doing nothing in cases of brightline behavioural issues, for very understandable reasons. If Skyring has done anything nearly as bad as we've seen presented here for HiLo, by all means, let us look at that and consider action there. As to HiLo, I am convinced: this user needs to hear from the community that under no uncertain terms will this trading in comments about the supposed shortcomings of the people of X country be tolerated. It has no place in an open project like this, where inclusion is a mandate and your comments are meant to be avoiding personalizing discussion anyway. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Daveosaurus, Ben Roberts-Smith was awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry but it has subsequently emerged he committed a number of atrocious war crimes. By your argument we should overlook the latter because of the former. 1.136.105.123 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC).

I love a good analogy, but it is very easy to slip into reductio ad absurdum with them, as you’ve just proven, IP. — Trey Maturin™ 21:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Inclined to agree: an example from such another universe of misdeed that it can only really inflame and muddy the waters. Nevertheless, the underlying point that existed before the IP's hyperbolic example remains: we don't give community members free passes on violations of pillar policies just because they've been here long enough to accrue a body of positive mainspace edits. ...Well, actually, as a community we routinely have in the past, but we shouldn't. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Possibly Confused Comments

I made the mistake of reading this series of posts, and I either have missed the request for administrative action, or have concluded that there isn't a request for administrative action. This isn't as much of a tentacled monster as the discussion about BHG and her enemies and categories, but it is at least as confusing, because I can't see the call for administrative action. I see that the discussion is mostly about:

• Insults to Americans. (Many Americans ignore national insults.)
• Two people with the same name, a great Australian sportsman, and an American who should be forgotten.
• National differences in sports and in interests in sports.

As soon as User:HiLo48 is mentioned, it seems that the subject gets changed back either to someone else or some other thing about nations.

There are several mostly valid reasons to insult Americans. Ignorance of cricket is not one of them. That sport is international, but is not worldwide. Americans play a different game that has an almost lost common ancestor with cricket, and is also international but not worldwide. It is reasonable to insult an American who is ignorant of another sport of British origin that is worldwide. This month and next, an American who expresses a lack of interest in the worldwide game is probably not so much ignorant as misogynistic.

Is there a request for administrative action, or should this discussion be moved to a subpage or archived or closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How in the world does misogyny come into it??? EEng 21:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Most American sports fans do not usually follow association football as much as other sports, but will be watching the defending champion United States women's national soccer team in the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, unless they don't care for women's sports. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah... about that. As much as I'm a big fan of UConn Huskies women's basketball (about as much as the men's team, this year was a mirror image of the more common outcome for each team), if you want a decent summary of my attitude (which is very representative of Americans) towards women's soccer this should do the trick. I only know anything about it because I heard Sue Bird was on the cover of SI, and... did not know it was the Body Issue (I've never understood the appeal) or that she was married to Megan Rapinoe. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This is going nowhere except on a grand tour of prejudices and their intersection with sports. Can we just get into the inevitable transphobia and get it over with, or better yet actually discuss the topic at hand? Dronebogus (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a discussion below I think Aaron Liu (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's a request to give HiLo a final warning for their insults. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Since the community has mostly been discussing the side issues, maybe an administrator should give HiLo a final warning as a normal administrative action, and then close this before it becomes another giant squid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll be honest Robert, I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying here. There's no need for some kind of formal "request for administrative action" in order for the community to discuss behavioural issues, and if there was, I would say that it was satisfied by the OPs bringing the matter here in the first place. And while there have been short divergences here and there, the bulk of the above discussion is clearly focused on HiLo's poor record for civility in general and the recent unacceptable PAs in particular: the discussion does not look very "confused" to me at all. further, I think your summary of the conduct a) leaves out a lot of the more problematic language, thereby minimizing the community's concerns, and b) just generally does not align with the rough (if non-unanimous) consensus above that this behaviour is in fact not "reasonable" but rather quite serious violations of policy. It's possible I am misunderstanding you, though, because your comments seem to me to go back and forth on whether this is a serious issue or not.

All that said, while heavily disagreeing with your analysis of the situation, I do find that I am agreement with your suggested course of action. Speaking as one community member (un-involved in the underlying disputes but kinda aghast at the behaviour here and the inaction of multiple admins who watched this unfold) I'd be happier if the community sent a more unified message in the form of a sanction for HiLo (even a slap on the wrist half day block or a narrow TBAN would be something), but it doesn't look like that it is going to happen. An admin issuing a formal warning would certainly be better than nothing--ideally it would be logged/relayed to HiLo via his TP and put in the formal close here. But I think I have to agree that the writing is on the wall here: there's not sufficient community will for a sanction here. That mystifies me, personally, but there's insufficient justification in keeping the discussion open indefinitely if it is not leading to a useful conclusion. So let's hope an admin is willing to make the warning and close the thread. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

User:SnowRise - I wasn't really commenting on the seriousness of the nationalistic attacks by HiLo. I was reading the discussion here in the possibly futile hope that it would enlighten me as to what the offense was. It didn't enlighten me, so I was and still am confused as to what the details of the main issue are, if the main issue is the conduct of HiLo. I will admit that I don't normally get upset by non-Americans who say stupid things about Americans. Either the stupid things are true, or they are not true, and citizens of a big country can ignore stupid comments. I didn't see any specific evidence of a civility problem by HiLo here, although I am aware that there is such a problem. I thought that the discussion here was mostly tangential, which is why I said it was about other things. Maybe I was expected to read several months of archives, but I am not doing that. I didn't see evidence presented here that amounted to a real case against HiLo. Do you want to show me where it is? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Robert. Like you, I believe it is a dubious use of time to go digging through historical reports for past misdeeds. I do believe that a large and consistent enough pattern of behaviour is worth noting after a time, and I think one exists here, but more to the point, I don't think you need look at anything more than what has already been reported here to be able to appreciate the depth of the problems. That includes some comments that you are clearly aware of but (if I am reading you correctly) are largely dismissing, suggesting the gap between our perspectives is one of philosophy about what is appropriate conduct and speech on this project, rather than a difference in the facts we are working from.

For example, I still feel you are underrating the severity and the damage done by the nationalistic people-bashing comments in question. First off, even if HiLo's comments had been restricted to the message of "you clearly don't know anything about cricket because you are American--therefore get out of my way", that in itself would be a major issue. That's not how we discuss or form consensus on this project, and as someone positioned as an ADR guru on this project, that's something I'm surprised you don't readily agree with me about, and take more seriously. It's a brightline WP:CIR issue when an editor decides to take potshots trying to tear down their rhetorical opposition personally, rather than arguing a priori from the sources, content, and policy.

But HiLo then went far beyond this, beginning to opine more broadly about ignorant Americans with no vision or interest beyond their borders. There is no question that in doing so they leapt straight across any dubious plausible deniability they had for their prejudice and straight into nationalistic WP:PA territory. I respect that you (and probably many of our American editors) have thick enough skin that you can shrug this kind of comment off. That's a character strength. It does not, however, change how unacceptable this kind of comment is, and we don't need you or any one particular American editor to take offense at it before it is a massive problem. Even if the OP had taken no issue with, it would still be a serious violation of core (even pillar) policies, and needing addressing.

Then also in this thread we have a number of diffs of this user losing their ever-loving mind on people in ways that I can only really classify as "TEMPER TANTRUMS, OMG why can't people see what a problem this guy is!!!!!!!!!", to ape the form of these posts. This is somebody who is not exercising the minimum we expect (or at least I thought we expected) for communication in a productive and civil fashion on en.Wikipedia. Worse yet, if you look at this editor's user page, you will see that they themselves have documented that these kinds of observations have been incoming for them for years and years, and yet they have dismissed all such efforts at community intervention (regarding what are clear basic competency issues with regard to discussion) as they themselves being harassed by the "niceness police" or "civility police". This is clear WP:IDHT that, from all indicators, has been going on for well over a decade. Their block log further reflects this.

So, this seems to be a community member who has had more than fair warning that they are falling short of community standards, and yet interprets it consistently as whinging from editors who just don't get how important their contributions are and why they can't be expected to adhere to the normal rules, which they consider an unfair burden. Well, respectfully, at least with regard to this recent wave of behaviour, I think they have been let off lightly up until now. This inaction is not helping the situation with this user, and it's not a good look for us to continue to enable the status quo, simply because of the resistance in this space to sanctioning and established user, relative to a new one. From jut the details established in this thread, HiLo's arguments are often not valid policy arguments, and even cross the line into bigoted invective. What is the argument for tolerating any of this, when it could not be more clearly a violation of WP:PA, WP:CIV, and WP:DISRUPTIVE? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

All that said, this is the end of my contributions to this thread: after four sizeable posts, I don't have anything more novel to add, or better ways to say it. And even as an uninvolved party to the underlying dispute, there comes a time where one more comment begins to look out of proportion. Indeed, I'm only adding these last two posts to respond to your inquiry, clearly made in good faith. I recognize there is not an appetite for a sanction here. I'll repeat that this confuses and worries me. But there should be no doubt that the problems here are real and substantial, whatever our collective response to it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise - You refer to me as an ADR guru. What is ADR? Is it Alternative Dispute Resolution? I don't think it has to do with footnotes. When I mediate disputes, I try to encourage the parties to ignore any personal attacks and will collapse them. Sometimes ignoring any unpleasant comments may make it possible to solve a content dispute. But the reason that I am ignoring the "impersonal attacks", that is, attacks on my nation, is mainly that I haven't seen them, and I don't want to see them. So if I am ignoring the attacks, it is because I am ignoring the attacks, not because I don't think that they are serious. I haven't seen them to assess whether they are serious. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Even just a warning would be sufficient. A thread like this closing with no action sends a message to contributors (and not incidentally, also to admins) that the community has decided violations like these are tolerable because they are not against an unacceptable target and because nothing was done about it in the past. I for one won't stand by idly if disruption like this continues at WP:ITNC, however. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I come to this thread after I was thinking of leaving a message at HiLo's talkpage (put it at the article talk instead). From being in the same place as HiLo in various corners of Wikipedia, I think that HiLo is a generally a well-meaning editor but knows their own mind; does not like being challenged on those well-held beliefs (from big, like injustice, to small, like word placement - the reaction is the same); and does not like the idea that others may perceive them negatively, tending to say it is those others' fault somehow. This last one was very much confirmed for me (though not in a Wikipedia context) recently through a discussion about haka, though comments above suggest they've also acknowledged (but relished in) it.
I think that HiLo has got away with such editing attitudes at ITNC, where I see them most, for so long because of how short those discussions last. Regular contributors can expect an erratically-capitalised, strongly-worded, anti-American !vote from HiLo, and possibly some follow-ups if a newbie dare interact with HiLo's comments. But these comments don't warrant response and disappear within a week; they can be easy to ignore (not in the sense of not considering them, if apt, but that they're so routine and fleeting that the fact it's uncooperative no longer affects regulars). Of course, the issue there is that it makes ITNC unwelcoming for newbies, being alarmed both by such comments and the passive attitude towards them. A similar phenomenon may be happening across Wikipedia - that users are familiar with HiLo's MO and don't engage with it, thinking trying to fix it would be fruitless and being so accustomed that it has no effect.
This situation could probably continue, even though it requires concessions from the editing community at large to allow HiLo to continue with the absolutism. However, for the benefit of newer editors who are not accustomed and may feel bullied or such when first interacting, I would agree that the community should probably try to address this. Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there anything stopping us from having an admin go to HiLo's talk page, give them a formal final warning, and then just close this? IMO this has been in closing territory for nearly a week Aaron Liu (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think that'll fix it. In among it all, HiLo does make useful contributions. The attitude is something deeply entrenched with their editing. I do not think they will be able to immediately change it, certainly not everywhere, and then they'll have gone past their final warning and be gone. Maybe some people want that, but perhaps different steps should be taken. An ITNC TBAN could be useful, or to encourage HiLo to use variations on a standard response in their ITNC !votes. Asking them to drop the all caps would help. Users familiar with HiLo's editing and presence could brainstorm measures to help curb the ... lack of bedside manner, for want of a better short way of describing it. Kingsif (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

How about we combine these and give a final warning before TBAN? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that could be recommended. I meant that, in addition, we could find ways to either encourage or enforce better manner, rather than just say "do it or be banned". I'm not sure it would be effective, but worth a try? Though I understand if everyone thinks that's too much effort. Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Request to restore talk page access

Can an admin please restore talk page access to my colleague User:Dancey2 so that they can appeal a block?

My request for this was declined on the talk page in the section User_talk:Dancey2#Confirmed_identity for being out of process, when the request needs to be here at ANI. The user's own request for unblock was declined at UTRS based on need to confirm identity, which I vouch for as I know them personally. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn’t WP:CLEANSTART or WP:SO have been better for an account that got the chop 6 years ago? That Talk Page history’s gonna go against them somewhere down the line. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Users who may not have a clean start: Any user who has currently active bans, blocks or other sanctions imposed. No, CLEANSTART would not be better for an indeffed editor. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I vouch for as I know them personally users vouching for others to "confirm identities" is not accepted on wikipedia especially for those vouching the identity of blocked editors. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This editor appears to be unable to appeal their ban via the ticket system as they cannot prove they are the original account owner, and they cannot appeal their ban here because their block prevents them. They don't appear to have any option whatsoever. Surely we don't have a system that actually forces banned editors to do exactly what we don't want them to do: open a block-evading sock-puppet in order to appeal a ban, where, if they're honest, they will be instantly re-blocked (and the unban-request summarily dismissed) for being a sock-puppet of a banned account? That would be silly at a truly Yes Minister level. Is there a constructive way out of the dilemma? Elemimele (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding some context that Dancey2, in their UTRS appeal, claimed to have been evading the block since February 2022, from an account that has continued to make edits after the appeal was declined. So if Bluerasberry is vouching that Dancey2 is telling the truth when they say that they've been socking for the past year and a half, then I would suggest that the ball is in Dancey2's court in terms of demonstrating a good-faith commitment to following all policies, including WP:SOCK. Dancey2 has not been banned from UTRS, and is able to open a second UTRS appeal (hopefully a more substantive one) when they're ready. DanCherek (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure if it would be accepted or not but emailing the VRT at info-enwikimedia.org explaining , could be a method for confirming identity.

If not then, another account could work, we've allowed socks who no longer have access to their original account to appeal from their newest account before. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about all this. I do not think this situation has to be complicated. Anyone please make any specific demand and we will comply. The user got blocked for copyright violation, which is serious but it is also teachable and more easily corrected than a conduct problem. The user wishes to appeal.

As Elemimele says, they have no appeal option right now. They do not have talk page access so they cannot give a public explanation as they prefer. UTRS - the private backstage option - is blocked because of someone requiring them to do WP:Identity verification. Also UTRS has a rate limit for appeals and they are in time out right now, and cannot submit.

Lavalizard101 If my word of personally knowing this user is insufficient to restore their right to appeal on their talk page, then please suggest any method of identity verification and I can have this person do it. The problem is that UTRS is demanding identity verification, but WP:Identity verification is not a standard process.

DanCherek This user is not requesting privacy. Their current account, old account, and public identity can be connected. After being blocked for 7 years they made a new account. I do not think anyone would call that "socking" or "evasion", but yes, the point of this appeal is to connect the accounts and identity. The process that the Wikipedia platform offers for such users is to make a new account, and other options are non-intuitive. Nevertheless, I will support them in expressing understanding of WP:SOCK in their appeal. Since the problem in UTRS was identity, not copyvio, and not socking, I thought to come to the wiki since no one here is asking for the privacy inherent in UTRS.

Matticusmadness I do not see any shame in past violations. If someone was blocked years ago and they do confession and contrition then I see no reason for them to carry guilt or for the wiki community to shame them. Whenever possible, I encourage appealing blocks through the standard process.

Again, suggest any process, and I will support my colleague in applying. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

emailing the VRT at info-enwikimedia.org explaining [the situation], could be a method for confirming identity. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I emailed VRT! See the message at ticket:2023071210009396. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is clearly wrong. A sysop should restore this user's access to their own talk page for the duration of their block appeal.—S Marshall T/C 08:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Matticusmadness, Lavalizard101, Elemimele, DanCherek, and Writ Keeper: Can I please ask for reconsideration of my original request to unblock this person's user talk page so that they can engage in on-wiki appeal?

At VRT in the ticket linked above the agent found the request to be out of scope, and I think it is. The cause of the problem as I understand it is that UTRS perceived phishing strangeness in an unblock request for a 17-year old account, blocked for 7 years for copyvio. We could do another UTRS request, but I think the privacy of UTRS has scared some reviewers in the appeal process so being public on-wiki is preferable.

The harm to mitigate here is the danger of a user posting on their talk page while multiple people observe them. I see this as low risk. If no one expresses a concern, can someone either unblock for the appeal or make a specific request for what we can do to merit the unblock? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering that, according to the username they gave in the (underwhelming) UTRS appeal, they were still evading their block as of two weeks ago, I'm not particularly compelled. To be clear--the identity question about UTRS is because it looks like a joe job to get the account named as the sockpuppet blocked. If your friend is really interested in playing by the rules, rather than using Wikipedia as their own personal playground, then they'd need to first do something like making a single edit to the sock account's user page to confirm that they have control over that account. Then, the sock can be blocked, and we can go from there; I personally would be all right with restoring talk page access after that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This one’s tricky because CU’s got no Tech data to go off of (7 years, it’ll all be loooong  Stale) and behavioural can’t be used because they can’t edit in the here and now. I for one, am making a judgement call here, on quotes from requester, and from someone I think is on the UTRS List (that means you, Writ)

UTRS perceived phishing strangeness in an unblock request for a 17-year old account

And as per Writ:

they were still evading their block as of two weeks ago,

it looks like a joe job to get the account named as the sockpuppet blocked.

So that’s a Oh HAIL no! from me, chief! I like Writ’s idea, though.

Also, trout me if y’all must, for ‘dim idea of the day that we all already thought of’, but has anyone checked that Blue isn’t compromised? Trying to vouch for a 7 year blocked account, isn’t… normal, I think?

On a last note, that ‘Identity Verification’ page’s piece about Twitter’s Blue checkmark meaning ‘Verified’ is just asking for trouble. ‘Block the Blue’ ring a bell to anyone? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 11:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

They were socking as recently as June 30 as HappyBear5000. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That's enough for me to say this discussion can end now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so here is where we are: @Writ Keeper: says "they'd need to first do something like making a single edit to the sock account's user page to confirm that they have control over that account". I interpret this to mean that they need to login to the sock user:HappyBear5000 and make an edit saying "I am happybear5000 and dancey2. I wish to only use the dancey2 account. Please direct me in making an appeal for unblock. Thanks." The reaction will then be that dancey2 gets the talk page unblocked, and they log out of the sock happybear5000 and log into dancey2 to make an appeal on the dancey2 user talk page. Doing all this solves the original problem of dancey2 not having the edit option to make an appeal on their user talk page. I presume everyone is cool with this process - speak up if anyone has additional requests here. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I came here to say my normal piece about what I think of as "adverse possession unblocks"—cases where someone has socked, but proven themself non-disruptive, and thus should be let to continue editing. In verifying the "non-disruptive" part, however, I came upon this addition of analysis by one Evan Lang Pandya to The Mystery of Marie Rogêt, duly reverted by VioletSeraphim, who describes Pandya as a cited critic who does not exist and whose cited work does not exist. Indeed, I cannot find any evidence on Google or in The Wikipedia Library that the cited Phenomenology in Nineteenth-Century American Letters exists. Three other Wikipedia articles cite Pandya:

• "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening"—added in December, also by HappyBear, citing The Editorial Dance: Poetry and the Birth of the Definitive Edition, of which I can likewise find no record
• "The Birth-Mark"—added in 2018 by 76.123.2.205, a residential IP in Charlottesville, Virginia (where Dancey/HappyBear works, according to Bluerasberry), citing a seemingly fictious Hawthorne in Context edited by a seemingly fictitious Jeffrey Williams Lloyd
• Capitalist Realism—added in December by 2601:243:280:a7d2::/64, a residential IP in Illinois with no other edits, citing a source that does not mention Pandya

All 8 Google hits for Pandya trace back to Wikipedia. Midnightdreary also commented on HappyBear's talk in December about Pandya failing verification.

It seems to me now that the question at hand—the right path forward for someone looking to appeal an old block—is a far more mundane one than what we actually have, which is long-term hoaxing across multiple IPs and accounts. (There's any number of explanations for why the one edit would geolocate to Illinois, from IP re-allocation to vacation to meatpuppetry.) @Bluerasberry: You know I greatly appreciate the work you do for the movement, so please take this in friendship when I say that you may want to consider the possibility that you're being played here. This would not be the first time that someone made the acquaintance of an established Wikipedian and tried to manipulate them in order to escape accountability for their own misconduct. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I see VioletSeraphim removed a bunch of these at the same time as the Marie Rogêt one. The Last of the Mohicans (fake journal article); The Mill on the Floss (fake journal article); Laetitia Pilkington (book title is generic but seems not to exist; chapter title gets no GHits). There's also an instance at The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall (fake book and editor—a hoax about hoaxing!) by IngmarDerpman (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited in over a year but, given how long this sockmater's been at it, I have blocked. (Note that their other edits are consistent with HappyBear's—interest in college basketball and football, see also EIA.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

? All kinds of people go crazy and maybe that includes this person, but yes, I know them in person at my university. I will meet them soon and ask where they got the seeming hoax citations, what other accounts they have if any, and the rest.

I am never surprised about people's double lives because I have seen a lot of them, but in this case, I have no knowledge of any of this.

Tamzin thanks for the attention you put into the review. I appreciate being called out and - as it should be - I do not take it personally and enjoy the whole wiki process. Thanks for asking all this. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a strange world at the intersection of trust and block evasion. There's one banned user whom I trust a fair bit, because I've always known them to be completely candid about what policies they have and haven't violated; they're honest about what they're dishonest about. But on the other hand, we see this gambit pretty often, someone owning up to past mistakes to a sympathetic AGFing community member, while failing to disclose more serious and/or recent issues. (Icewhiz comes to mind, as do a few well-spoken "oh no my article was deleted! won't somebody help?" types.) As always on apparent hoaxing/deception, I'd love to be proven wrong here, but I'm pessimistic. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Matticusmadness, RickinBaltimore, Tamzin, Courcelles, Writ Keeper, Lavalizard101, Elemimele, and DanCherek: The user posted an appeal at User talk:HappyBear5000. Thanks for your attention to this point. If anyone has requests for info or demands for correction for this user, then now would be a good time to post those to their user page during their appeal. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Footwiks, competence is required, and copyvio

Footwiks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Copyvio Copying within Wikipedia without attribution, I apologize :3 F4U (they/it) 11:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC) - Here, copied from here without attribution
• More copyvio - [42]
• [43] No diff because Footwiks makes talk page comments across ... many edits, each of the many comments there are 20-40 edits each, so I'm not really able to provide a single edit (They have made 424 of the last 475 edits to that talk page). There's WP:OWN, not understanding Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines despite multiple explanations, etc.
• Discussion on my talk page Again, I see here a lack of ability/want to understand English Wikipedia policy

Footwiks was previously blocked for competency is required reasons in 2013 after edit warring in football articles against consensus and failing to understand what other editors were telling them. Unblock request here In 2022, Footwiks was brough to ANI again following a copyright violation, where editors tried to explain to Footwiks what they did wrong, and to which Footwiks failed to understand them. (Other ANI incidents: 2012, 2012, 2013, 2021,) What I see here is that despite many many editors trying to explain to Footwiks (who now has amassed over 60,000 edits) basic Wikipedia policy on copyvio, citing sources, etc., Footwiks has demonstrated that it is too difficult for them to read/understand what they are being told. :3 F4U (they/it) 10:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• (1) Please check out United Kingdom in the Korean War. Memorial section is the tiny part. All contents in the United Kingdom in the Korean War are my own contributions.
• (2) Please check out South Korea in the Korean War. I created this article 10 July 2023, Timeline section, Caualties section, Main Battles section are my own contributions. I copied Order of Battle section from Korean War order of battle. But this Order of Battle don't have ROK Navy, ROK Air Force, ROK Marine Corps. So this weekend, I have a plan to expand this article including Order of Battle section with various statistics soon. Today (14 July 2023), I was expanding the article - South Korea in the Korean War. But other users didn't wait my contributions. Currently, This article is redirected to Korean War article. So I also don't want to wast my precious time to expand this article - South Korea in the Korean War
• (3) F4U is a native Korean Speaker, I'm a South Korean. So I left a message in Korean on talk page. What is the problem?

In my opinion, I didn't breach WP policy to report here.

Footwiks (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that editors, including myself, are pointing you towards policy, but I do not see any sign that you are understanding what they are saying. I have no doubt your edits are in good faith, but I find it difficult to find that you can be a productive member on English Wikipedia if you have difficulty understanding what other editors are saying and when they point you towards English Wikipedia policy. I told you on my talk page that in its current state, South Korea in the Korean War was not suitable for article space and that I would be willing to move it to draft state. You responded by telling me to leave it alone. Your messages in Talk:List of military special forces units also demonstrate a lack of ability to provide comprehensible messages that other editors can understand and respond to. And the copyvio demonstrates that previous discussions about disruptive behavior seemingly did not have an impact. :3 F4U (they/it) 11:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You moved article to draft status. But I politely asked you to keep the status.

So you voluntarily reverted to the original status and I left a thank you message on your talk page.

Please check out conversatons on your talk page. What is the problem? You and me didn't have any disputes.

I really don't understand why you report my actions to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

• Talk with Freedom4u
• Footwiks: 안녕하세요? 혹시 한국인이신가요? South Korea in the Korean War 지금 이 문서 7월 10일에 만들어서 계속 확장 중인데 왜 삭제를 신청하신거죠? 느긋하게 지켜 봐 주시길 부탁드리고 영어와 한국어 네이티브급이라고 쓰여져 있던데 문서 확장하는데 동참해 주시면 더더욱 감사하겠습니다.

(Hello, Are You Korean? I created this article on 10 July, I'm now expanding article. Why do you attach deletion tag?

Please wait and I think that your English is native level, If you expand together, I'll appreciate your contributions.)

• Freedom4u: 아 알겠습니다. 아직 확장 중이라면 Draft: namespace에 넣고 준비가 되면 제출할 수 있습니다.

(I understand what you mean, If you are still expanding this article, Let's move Draft: namespace.)

• Footwiks: 지금 문서 수준이 드래프트 상태는 아닙니다. 제가 계속 업데이트 할 것이고 외국인 유저들도 기여를 할 수 있으니까 그냥 가만히 두시면 감사하겠습니다.

(I think that this article is not draft status. I'm now expanding this article and other foreign user can expand this article, Please keep current status.)

In the middle of this converstaion, Freedom4u moved this article to draft status but he reverted to original status.

• Footwiks: 제 부탁을 들어 주셔서 진심으로 감사합니다.

(Thanks for your favor.)

• Freedom4u: 이 상태에서 이 문서는 WP:Articles for deletion 토론에서 살아나물 가능성이 없습니다. Articles for Creation으로 이동하면 원하는 속도로 적고 Mainspace로 이동할 준비가 되면 다시 이동할 수 있습니다.

(South Korea in the Korean War article can be delete after discussion in WP:Articles for deletion. So I recommend the Articles for Creation.)

End of the talk

Footwiks (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• I support a WP:CIR block of Footwiks. After reading the evidence above and Talk:List of military special forces units, it's clear that Footwiks either doesn't read, doesn't understand, or simply ignores what they're being told. At that Talk page, they repeatedly insist on South Korean sources over Western sources (because apparently the SK sources are correct and the Western sources aren't), then they have the gall to cite Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and criticize User:Thewolfchild for attempting to compromise. A competent editor would recognize that this version of an article is clearly not ready for mainspace. Then there's the copyright violations, ownership, edit warring, etc. Woodroar (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Their reply to me below is a perfect encapsulation of the CIR issue with Footwiks. I mentioned that I had read Talk:List of military special forces units, then Footwiks asked if I'd read it and pasted comments from the Talk page. It's like talking with a brick wall. That they wrote Please Please listen carefully is ironic when it's evident that they can't or won't do the same. Adjusted and bolded my !vote above. Woodroar (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

There's also this 2022 ANI in which Footwiks repeatedly struggled to understand why their copyvio was copyvio (including: believing the only issue was an article title, believing the issue was the source used and not the copying of content from that source, and believing the issue was grammar related). Given that they're still struggling with copyvio after those explanations, I support at least a block that can be lifted with a clear explanation from them, in their own words, that demonstrates a solid understanding of copyright policy. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Woodroar: Did you check out thoroughly the long discussion of the Talk:List of military special forces units?

• Yes right, I repeatedly insist that South Korean sources are correct and Western sources aren't.

  I'll explain the reason in detail and Please Please listen carefully.

  Firstly, South Korean sources about 'Spartan 3000' are published on 20 March 2016,

  • (1) Telegraph source (2016-03-21) - Telegraph source have a follow sentence - "according to the Seoul-based news agency Yonhap
  • (2) The Diplomat source (2016-03-24) - "The Diplomat source have a follow sentence - "a South Korean military official revealed to Yonhap News last Sunday."

  Telegraph source (21 March 2016) and The Diplomat source (24 March 2016) cited South Korean Yonhap News Agency (연합뉴스) but original Korean prose (20 March 2016) from source of Yonhap News (연합뉴스) didn't have any sentences and terms - 'Spartan 3000' is the Special Force Unit or Spartan 3000's main task is the Special Operation.", Actually, Yonhap News (연합뉴스) announced that 'Spartan 3000' is the just Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대).

But these Western sources announced that Spartan 3000 is a Special Force Unit or Spartan 3000's main task is the Special Operation and these western news outlet's articles are now using as the sources in the List of military special forces units

• (3) New York Times (2017-09-12) NY Times source absolutely didn't have any terms "Spartan 3000" or ROK Marine Corps. NY Times source was definitely not about the "Spartan 3000", NY Times source was about other South Korean Special Force Unit.

In conclusion, "Telegraph and Diplomat sources made a translation errors or intentional journalistic exaggeration, NY Times source are not relevant source about 'Spartan 3000 Unit."

I hope that you understand the issue of this discussion and why I didn't accept compromise in this discussion.

:Discussion participant "Buckshot06" also pointed out the flaws of Western Sources.

I and Buckshot06, We are planning to open discuss again in order to correct wrong information in the List of military special forces units soon.

You were not a participant of this this long discussion and You didn't check out this long discussion throughly. Please don't comment this discussion here.Footwiks (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was notified of this and then pinged here, so I suppose I should add something. In regards to the comments above, this is not really the place to try and relitigate the specific Spartan 3000 dispute. If people want to know about that, they can read the assosciated talk page discussion, or the subsequent discussion at DRN. On these pages are numerous examples of why people may have difficulties with Footwiks and why Footwiks may have difficulties with Wikipedia, issues that have already been noted by others here. What is not evident, unless you had tried to follow/watchlist these disussions at the time, or unless you check the histories, is Footwiks' refusal to simply use the preview function. For participants this can be problematic, (re: at the DRN, Footwiks made over 470 edits... I made 17). In the Spartan 3000 thread, Footwiks lengthy and often posted repetitive comments that would regularly take up to 30 consecutive edits or more before being complete. They made a total of 424 edits in that one discussion alone... that is a lot of notifications, and often leads to numerous edit conflicts, not to mention the blowing up of related page histories. (Fyi: their final post to that thread was 38,000+kb in size and took 55+ consecutive edits to complete.) I did try to notify this user of the preview function, which one of WP's widely accepted norms, but that just largely ended up like other attempted discussions with them. In closing, I will say that I was initially under the impression that this was a new user, and was surprised to find that (at the time) they had been here for over 13 years and had made 62,000+ edits (this does not count their experience at the ko.wp or others). At this point, I'm not sure what can be done to resolve these issues. - wolf

@Freedom4U: Did you check out thoroughly the long discussion of the Talk:List of military special forces units?

If you read the South Korean sources - "Korean newspaper and official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps in this discussion."

You can understand issue of this discussion. In order to finish discussion rapidly. I asked for official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps and received it.

But unfortunately, discussion lengthened. In this situation, There is WP:OWN and I don't understanding Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines?

Please check out thoroughly the long discussion of the Talk:List of military special forces units, Especially, You are a native Korean Speaker,

Please South Korean sources - "Korean newspaper and official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps in this discussion thoroughly.

• Screenshot of official answer from ROKMC about Spartan 3000

I really understand the sourcing guidelines, Do you know the below the sourcing guidelines?

I discussed in accordance with common this sourcing guidelines.

• Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages

You were not a participant of this this long discussion and You didn't check out this long discussion throughly. Please don't comment this discussion here.Footwiks (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

We cannot accept official answers from the marine corps, or anything similar. Secretlondon (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Official answers is primary sources. I know that Wikipedia prefer secondary source.

Please read this sourcing guideline.

• Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages

Footwiks (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dylnuge: Please check out my all contributions From 7 to 14 July.

As you see, I created 3 articles about Korean War and I spended so much my precious time for development of English Wikipedia.

• UN Forces in the Korean War
• Medical support in the Korean War
• United Kingdom in the Korean War

• Belows are sources and I provided new informatin about Korean War in English Wikipedia. That is to say, Most information in my 3 articles are the new information which don't have in existing English Wikipedia article about Korean War.

• • The Statistics of the Korean War - ROK Ministry of National Defense Institute for Military History, 2014 (E-BOOK) (in Korean)
  • The History of the UN Forces in the Korean War-1 ( ETHIOPIA, PHILIPPINES, SOUTH AFRICA, THAILAND, TURKEY) - ROK Ministry of National Defense Institute for Military History, 1972 (E-BOOK)
  • The History of the UN Forces in the Korean War-2 (AUSTRALIA, CANADA, INDIA, NEW ZEALAND, UNITED KINGDOM) - ROK Ministry of National Defense Institute for Military History, 1981 (E-BOOK)
  • The History of the UN Forces in the Korean War-3 (BELGIUM, COLOMBIA, FRANCE, GREECE, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS, DENMARK, ITALY, NORWAY, SWEDEN) - ROK Ministry of National Defense Institute for Military History, 1974 (E-BOOK)

I immersed myself in creating articles with new information for 7 days for development of WP. But tiny part is copyvio, Yes, It's my mistake, Wikipedia want to block me? I am deeply disappointed.Footwiks (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that your intentions are good. The problem is that copyvio can't be a "tiny part" of your contributions. It should be none of them. I'm not an admin, so I can't see the deleted diffs from 14 July, but it sounds like you're not contesting that those edits included copyvio. Between this and the warnings you got in December, I support a block indefinitely with any unblock being contingent on (at the least) your ability to demonstrate a clear understanding of the copyright policy. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

A Wikipedia exists in Korean. See this. Perhaps you’ll be more ‘at home’ there. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Matticusmadness I don't think that this comment is necessary, as they are also a prolific creator on there with around 70k edits. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I tried to mediate the dispute over List of military special forces units. User:thewolfchild has provided a link to that proceeding, and I will provide it again for the convenience of editors taking part in this inconvenient case: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_232#List_of_military_special_forces_units. If an editor tries to read it and concludes that they can't understand what the problem was because User:Footwiks's posts are so long and unfocused, they do understand what a major part of the problem was, which is that User:Footwiks was unable to comply with my instruction to be concise. I do not think that User:Footwiks understood the nature of DRN, because they, more than once, appealed to my editorial judgment and common sense. I try to mediate using common sense, but at DRN I am not an editorial judge. It was sometimes impossible to follow the lengthy posts by Footwiks that too often were a confusing mix of Korean and English translation, and made heavy use of bold face in a way that did not provide emphasis so much as distraction.

The mediation almost didn't happen, because I told Footwiks to notify the other editors, and they said first that they had notified them, and then that they decided not to post to the talk page of thewolfchild because they seemed angry or about to be made angry. Again, they didn't seem to understand.

Unfortunately, this editor seems to be a time sink. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I really apologize for my mistake of copyvio. If administrators give me a chance to contribute on Wikipedia, I'll strictly comply with the rules of Wikipedia:Copyright violations

But I have something to tell all Administrators about breach of sourcing guidelines. Freedom4U misunderstood the situations in the [Spartan 3000 Unit discussion

user:Freedom4U reported here as belows

"There's WP:OWN, not understanding Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines despite multiple explanations, etc."

I absolutely can't accept this report of user:Freedom4U.

Currently, ROK Marine Corps 'Spartan 3000 Unit' is on the List of military special forces units and User:thewolfchild attached Western sources.

Let's check out below 2 sources which attached by User:thewolfchild

(1) Telegraph source (2016-03-21) - Telegraph source have a follow sentence: "South Korea has formed an elite force of 3,000 marines which is poised to carry out raids inside North Korea (in 2016)

(2) New York Times (2017-09-12) - NY Times source have a follow sentence: the South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade defense officials described as a decapitation unit" would be established by the end of the year (end of the 2017).

If NY Times source is really about ROK Marine Corps "Spartan 3000" Unit, How can ROKMC establish the unit (brigade-level) with by the end of 2017?, "Spartan 3000" was already fully formed in March 2016 (based on Telegraph). Actually, South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo told creation of Decapitation Unit (참수부대) on 4 September 2017 ([source]) and other ROK Army Special Force Unit - "13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대)" was really formed in December 2017 ([source]

In chronological order, two sources are saying contradicting facts, also, Please find the term "Spartan 3000" in the whole prose from NY Times sourse.

NY Times source didn't have the term "Spartan 3000" or ROK Marine Corps.

This don't need the good editorial judgment. This is about the just reading comprehension ability of English newspaper article. I'm not an English native speaker. But I founded this flow in the NY Times source.

I think that Administrators of English Wikipedia are English native Speakers, Please throughly read and compare two newspaper articles - Telegraph source (2016-03-21) and New York Times (2017-09-12)

At that time, I pointed out flaw of NY Times source and I asked User:thewolfchild a question about this flaw twice.

But User:thewolfchild didn't reply.

Attaching of the irrelevant source and source with translation errors , Is this the compliance with the sourcing guidelines of Wikipedia?

I think that providing appropriate sources is duty of users in the Wikipedia.

Who did breach the sourcing guidelines of Wikipedia? me and User:thewolfchild?

User:Freedom4U was not the participant of 'Spartan 3000 discussion, It appears that User:Freedom4U TL;DR about all posts in the long discussion. User:Freedom4U didn't explain about my breach of sourcing guidelines in a concrete way.

About below accusations by User:Freedom4U. This is the definitely allegation and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

• There's WP:OWN, not understanding Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines despite multiple explanations, etc.
• Discussion on my talk page Again, I see here a lack of ability/want to understand English Wikipedia policy

About breach of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia accused by User:Freedom4U

(1) Memorial section, I copied from Battle of the Imjin River#Memorial

In my defense, I just forgot to link to the source article in my edit summary.

(2) Order of Battle section, I copied from Korean War order of battle#Pro-Southern forces: United Nations and Republic of Korea

In my defense, My Korean War History Book also had same ROK Army structure chart, This is not the sentence or description. I was planning to improve order of Battle section including ROK Navy, ROK Air Force, ROK Marine Corps. But South Korea in the Korean War article are redirected to Korean War article by some user. So I couldn't improve order of Battle section.

FYI, Structure of the Republic of Korea Army, I created this articles. If I have enough time, I can improve order of Battle section.

Anyways, I really apologize for my mistake of copyvio again and I really apologize for all the trouble in the Wikipedia Community.

I am sincerely trying to provide better information in Wikipedia, I throw myself on the mercy of the ANI and beg for light punishment.

Thanks for your reading.Footwiks (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the above post by Footwiks is informative in an unintended way. I had wondered whether Footwiks is able to take part usefully in collaborative editing of the encyclopedia. I no longer wonder. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate your mediation and Sorry for long post in the DRN. I understand TL;DR trend in the Wikipedia. At that time, I focused the flaws of Western Sources but I think that you didn't read key western sources which cause dispute. Additionally, I also asked a question about flaw of NY Times source on your talk page. But you didn't reply. I think that long post in the DRN is not entirely my fault.Footwiks (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Footwiks; You say you understand the "TL:DR trend" on WP, yet you continue to post these giant walls of text that completely drown out any possibility of a coherent discussion thread. Furthermore, this ANI is your behaviour, and your competence to edit this project and interact with other editors, yet all you're doing here is trying to re-litigate a specific content dispute from the past, that doesn't even involve the OP. You're just focused on arguing (ad nauseum) about the ROKMC entry and the sources supporting it, but this is not the time and place for that. I have to agree with the others here that there is a CIR issue that needs to be addressed. Whether it's through mentorship or a block, something needs to be done. - wolf 17:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

When I failed the DRN, I said that maybe an interaction ban between User:Footwiks and User:Thewolfchild might be necessary. That question still needs to be answered if the community thinks that Footwiks is otherwise a net positive to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Um... what? Other than a single content dispute, that led to that DRN, Footwiks and I haven't interacted in over a month, and certainly not to the level of an IBAN. I didn't start this ANI, I was notified about it by the OP, and like several others here, including yourself, I posted concerns about Fw's editing. (Just above you referred to Fw as a "timesink", should there be an IBAN between Fw and you?) This is just a... strange and unsupported request to make, and an abrupt left turn in this report. - wolf 22:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild - I'm striking my comment about an IBAN. You did walk away from the WP:dead horse, and they didn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I have had encounters with Footwiks for a number of years, as we sometimes edit the same football-related articles. They can make good edits, and I have no doubt they are here to be a positive, but they have been here a long time and still don't know basics. I have told them TLDR multiple times and they still insist on posting walls of texts.

Are they a net positive? Yes, but probably only just at this stage from a cursory look above. Would a topic ban from military stuff be a (hopefully) more beneficial step before any kind of block/site ban? GiantSnowman 21:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ps their conduct has been raised multiple times at ANI previously, including by myself in June 2021. GiantSnowman 21:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue brought up here is a repeated and consistent failure to communicate with other editors, and doesn't uniquely apply to military articles or football articles. :3 F4U (they/it) 21:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that a topic ban is insufficient to handle the recurring copyvio issues. I have no opinion on the suitability or unsuitability of an iban between Footwiks and Thewolfchild (there's a lot to unpack there, and I haven't done it), but I second Thewolfchild's recommendation that Footwiks focus on the behavioral concerns here and not the content dispute. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And copyvio is just one instance among many where Footwiks has been explained Wikipedia policy by other editors and they have demonstrated that they either don't understand or don't want to understand. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: I admitted my fault about accusation of copyvio. But I think that below accusations you reported here are definitely allegations and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

• There's WP:OWN, not understanding Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines despite multiple explanations, etc.
• Discussion on my talk page Again, I see here a lack of ability/want to understand English Wikipedia policy

Firstly,

You were not the participant of 'Spartan 3000' unit discussion and Before report here, you didn't check out thoroughly contents of long discussion.

You are a Korean native Speaker, Please search the ROK Marine Corps 'Spartan 3000' unit / ('해병대 스파르탄 3000') on the South Korean internet - Naver and so on.

According to the result of search on the South Korean internet, Is 'Spartan 3000' unit / (해병대 스파르탄 3000)' the current Special Force Unit in South Korea?

So Do we have to add 'Spartan 3000 on the List of military special forces units in order to provide better information in WP?

We can't find out any recent sources about 'Spartan 3000' unit in South Korea sources and Western sources.

Because "Spartan 3000' was a just a nickname (used only March 2016) of ROK Marine Corps Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대), not Special Force Unit and Currently, ROK Marine Corps don't have any units with the name - "Spartan 3000'

If you search '해병대 스파르탄 3000' on the South Korean internet, You can understand this dispute about Spartan 3000 - Special Force Unit.

According to the reliable South Korean sources, Definitely, we have to remove 'Spartan 3000 on the List of military special forces units.

Therefore, In order to correct wrong information about South Korean military, I opened the discussion and pointed out the flaws - translation errors or intentional journalistic exaggeration of current 4 Western Sources which currently attached (Telegraph, Diplomat source, NY Times and The New Zealand Herald) in compliance with Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines.

Please put yourself in my position, If some users added wrong information on article about South Korean region - 'Gangnam' which you created and improved.

References are Westerns sources based on South Korean News Outlet sources - Yonhap News Agency and so on. But These Western sources have translation errors and journalistic exaggerations and some sources are even irrelevant source about Gangnam, actually, source is about Gangbuk.

So In order to correct wrong information on article Gangnam, You open a discussion and you point out the flaws of Western sources - translation errors and journalistic exaggerations and irrelevant sources about Gangnam. But unfortunately dispute occur, then discussion become a very long discussion.

If you open a discussion about 'Spartan 3000' unit instead of me in the near future, I think that you will also have a dispute and long discussion.

In conclusion, I don't accept your accusation - There's WP:OWN, not to understand Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines in the 'Spartan 3000' unit discussion

Secondly,

In discussion on your talk page, What is the problem about CIR?

You moved article to draft status. But I politely asked you to keep the current article status.

So you voluntarily reverted to the original article status and I left a thank you message on your talk page.

That's all, We didn't have any dispute.

Is this a lack of ability/want to understand English Wikipedia policy?

I'd like to hear your opinions about my two counterarguments.Footwiks (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, again - read the room mate! GiantSnowman 18:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support CIR block. The user's inability to comprehend basic editing and discussion standards would be evident in this thread even without a single diff. That they can't even understand other editors' advice/explanations when provided in their native language shows the problem is not one of language competency. JoelleJay (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Support for competence Block - As I mentioned just above, they haven't shown that they can engage in useful discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support CIR block' my interactions with the editor at Talk:Association football culture led me to contemplate coming to ANI myself; I didn't at the time, but if the issues still persist, I really think it would be a benefit for the encyclopedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Editor behavior at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

As many know, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a vaccine skeptic and pusher of medical misinformation. This is sourced in RS. Over the past few days, discussion in Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#Incredibly biased article has gone off the rails. I have given final warnings to three individual editors in the hopes of avoiding an ANI thread, in which I've told them to AGF and focus on content, not contributors. One of the three has ceased, but the other two persist.

NewEditor101101001 joined the discussion by saying, in part "It's sad that the Admins here seem to prefer biased hit pieces", and further talk posts such as "you're clearly risking the credibility of wikipedia as a whole", "Wikipedia isn't a dictatorship of @Ser!. It's supposed a collaboration", "there seems to be a filibuster going on by people who were able to make biased changes early and then locked down the page in what seems to be a desperate attempt to help Biden", and after my final warning to focus on content, "It is interesting that some of the people arguing most adamantly against any change like @Ser!, @Hob Gadling, @M.boli, and @Valjean are the same ones who have been actively editing the article to be more negative over the last 45 days regardless of consensus views" and "there is stonewalling. How do you address that by ignoring stonewalling/stonewallers?"

Opok2021 said "The problem in this case is not the sources, it is the editors", "I cannot assume good faith for some of this article as it is clearly bias as stated above". After my warning, this user seemed to straighten out a bit, but then said that they still see "deliberate editor bias (unconfirmed)".

I tried to avoid bringing this here. At a minimum, I'd like someone uninvolved to close down this thread, which is going nowhere and mooted by the ongoing RfC anyway. As for NewEditor101101001 and Opok2021, they need to learn to assume good faith on the part other contributors and drop their sticks. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I hatted that hot mess of accusations against good editors. Wikipedia's credibility is indeed on the line, but not as those editors think.

Research shows that Wikipedia's credibility immediately increases when those types of editors leave the project, so don't hesitate to block and ban them now rather than later. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That talk page has been a dumpster fire for a while, though thankfully now only due to a few editors thanks to TP semi-protection. Support warnings/temp blocks. It's in four CTOPs and, at least before semi-protection, saw frequent canvassing, so I really hope a few admins will add it to their watchlists and keep things cool. DFlhb (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Having been pinged here, I'd just like to reply to back up Muboshgu's report about these users engaging entirely in bad faith, particularly NewEditor101101001. As you'll see in the above post, NewEditor101101001 accused me of "actively editing the article to be more negative", which when you look at my actual edits to the page is demonstrably a lie as my edits consist only of copyedits. The user has also been soapboxing on the talk page, describing reliable sources as being "far-left" and accusing editors of having an "irrational dislike" for the subject and pushing "political propaganda" for just two examples. Between these posts in demonstrably bad faith and the litany of examples Muboshgu has provided above, it's increasingly clear that this user is WP:NOTHERE. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ve introduced NewEditor101101001 to the door, citing NOTHERE. I’ll add the article to my watchlist. Courcelles (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Some editors or readers may be upset, and why not? The article's short first paragraph, which is seen on Google and other search engines, mentions or hints at being anti-vaccine three times with very little else in sight (and if seen on Wikipedia by readers they also read the short summary "American attorney and anti-vaccine activist (born 1954)" - so make it four times). Kennedy has defended himself against these charges many times. The fact that he is running for president of the United States? Way down in the lead, many paragraphs away, as the last line. Wikipedia has often been accused of bias and slanting, but this is almost a textbook example that those accusers can point to as a direct form of this bias. Not a good look and it's hard, objectively, to argue with them. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Kennedy's primary notability for decades has been for his anti-vaccine and general anti-science stances. That is what he has consistently been reported on in reliable sources. Running for a political position doesn't change that. In fact, almost all reliable sources reporting on him and his campaign will still mention his anti-science background, because that is where his notability lies. As I noted on the talk page there, would we be expected to sterilize Alex Jones lede if he ran for President as well just because the factual notable background is negative for the subject? Silverseren^C 01:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia can say it once, maybe twice, in the short lead paragraph which is seen and read on search engines, and maybe an argument for non-bias editing can be made. But four times? Randy Kryn (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't, actually. You're conflating different things. There is a single sentence in the first paragraph that mentions his long-standing anti-vaccine stances, his more recent focus on specifically Covid vaccine fearmongering, and his more general conspiracy stances on public health topics. It only discusses vaccines once, with a single additional specific mention of Covid vaccines. Conspiracy theories on public health may include vaccines, but that part in this case is referring to his broader anti-science claims on other issues, including his AIDS denialism. Silverseren^C 01:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is the short descriptor and lead paragraph: Short descriptor: "American attorney and anti-vaccine activist (born 1954)", then "...is an American environmental lawyer and author who is known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines, and public health–related conspiracy theories." Editors can judge that for themselves, and the constant commotion on the talk page shows that readers already are. I'll leave it at that. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

They can judge that those descriptors are entirely accurate? He is a lawyer and anti-vaccine propagandist. That is what his notability has been for decades. Without it, we likely wouldn't have an article on him even with his campaign happening. Silverseren^C 02:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

He is also an author, which could probably be mentioned there. Let'srun (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the above. He satisfied WP:AUTHOR and the lead should mention that. Of course, writing is not what is he most known for. CT55555(talk) 23:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

That seems like an accurate summary to me. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, he's not known only for anti-vaccine propaganda, debunked claims about vaccines, and public health related conspiracy theories. He's also been in the news recently [44] for the racist direction his public health related conspiracy theories have taken. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Plus, of course, the polemic farting. EEng 07:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ugh. I feel the need to point out the large amount of seemingly single-purpose accounts on that talk page. Perhaps a temporary blue lock is in order for the talk page. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be a logical step. It's also amusing how this dispute has blossomed on the same day that Kennedy suggests that COVID-19 may have been engineered to spare Jewish people from getting sick with it. BD2412 T 03:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what to say concerning that information. "Ah, tabarnak" comes to mind. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

A blue lock sounds like an excellent idea. Bon courage (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Too much time being wasted. DFlhb (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

As the protecting admin, will do. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf has also been a disruptive presence in these discussions, which includes making vague insinuations that his opponents are paid editors [45] something that I think can charitably be described as preposterous. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Because Jtbobways is an experienced editor, their behavior is much more egregious, so take the sanctions meted out to the others and apply it double for Jtbobways. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering the sanctions I've seen so far are NOTHERE blocks... you can't double block someone, right? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Liliana, a topic ban would protect Wikipedia from their tendentious editing and discussing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but it's not really something that is double the sanctions handed out to others. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

True, but that was a bit of hyperbole. My point was that experience carries more culpability. We expect experienced editors to know better and to avoid these types of basic CIR issues. Jtbobwaysf is not a newbie, so their behavior is not good. They should know that bias from sources is allowed in articles, and that the "neutral" in NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the normal sense. It applies more to editorial neutrality than content neutrality. Editors should neutrally and faithfully document biased content from sources without interfering by censoring or neutralizing the wordings from RS. Editors should not use loaded terms of their own, but should not hesitate to accurately use the loaded terms used by RS, and then, if it's a quote or likely to be questioned, attribute it. We often have two choices: leave it out or attribute it. The first is censorship, so we should lean toward inclusion and just attribute it. I am not referring to borderline cases here, but cases where good RS are making clear statements and allegations. They should be allowed to speak without editors muzzling them. RS bias always trumps editorial bias. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The RfC that Muboshgu mentioned is nearing a reasonable time for closure, having been open since 17 June. XOR'easter (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I've filed a request for closure. XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Editors whose behaviors are under scrutiny here require to be notified as per the notice at the top of this page. SmolBrane (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Gbe Dutu Ongoing vandalism (since June)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I tried to report an user, but I god redirected here by Bbb23. I will repeat what I wrote on the Ongoing vandalism board. It's been a while since I have been on wikipedia, so excuse me if my report isn't done 100% correctly. Basically, it seems this user has been vandalising a lot of pages (A LOT!) since the end of spring and the start of summer. Just look at what he wrote at Stadionul Steaua (2021): Its confirmed FCSB will play in Steaua Arena This is not true. Use google translate and read this: https://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/fcsb-dinamo-tot-mai-departe-de-ghencea-ce-spune-mm-stoica-704395.html The title says: FCSB - Dinamo, further away from Ghencea. FURTHER! I wasn't even the user who undid his initial vandalism from 5-8 July. And this is just one example. He erased information at Template:CSA Steaua București managers without any explanation. He has all sorts of edits like this. Please ban him, it's so frustrating to stay now and correct all his vandalism. Dante4786 (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at some of the edits, I think the header of FCSB seems enlightening:

• "This article is about the club officially named FCSB. For the other team claiming to be the legal successor of the original Steaua București and affiliated with the multi-sport club and the army, see CSA Steaua București (football)."

This seems to be POV pushing of a difference of opinion on what the links should point to.

Simple answer: User:Gbe Dutu, Stop edit-warring, and - Take it to the talk page!

If this continues, any uninvolved admin may apply sanctions, including blocking. - jc37 14:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@jc37 He did it again. Erased information on 3 templates. Without justification. Please ban him, I can't keep babysitting him and undo his vandalism. I followed the rules, I notified him on his talk page. He didn't answer, here or there. He is just a troll. Dante4786 (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, it's a difference of opinion between you both. That said, this is disruptive, and he (and you) should be taking this to the talk page. And so with that in mind, I've placed a final warning on their talk page: [46]. At this point, any uninvolved admin may apply further sanctions as approriate. - jc37 23:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@jc37 But he erased information without explaining why. Those 3 weren't even my templates. He falsely claimed on Stadionul Steaua (2021) that it's confirmed, FCSB will play there. At the current moment (July 19th), FCSB is still in the negociating phase. At what point his acts are recognised as vandalism? When is enough enough? I don't want to bother you again but if he continues like this, I will have to report him again. I don't want to argue with him when he clearly doesn't have any constructive intentions on pages related to Steaua. Dante4786 (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked them for disruptive editing, but only until they start communicating, given that since 2021, they have never responded to any request or collaborated on any page. Thank you, Lourdes 03:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Genre warring User:SpaceHelmetX1

• SpaceHelmetX1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Block at AN3 for genre warring on July 6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SpaceHelmetX1

genre warring in dozens of articles. basically every edit is genre-change related. already blocked twice. will regularly go into articles, blank out genres that have been there for years and then demand sources when someone reverts --FMSky (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And am I wrong for that? Am I wrong for removing an unsourced information? Am I wrong when I say that genres should be sourced? Am I wrong when I restore a sourced genre removed without any reason? Am I wrong to ask for sources? Do I change articles to the way I want? I respect the genres. I don't need to try change an article even when I know I'm not wrong. If, in order not to lose my account or be temporarily blocked, I need to abandon some articles, I can do that. Am I to blame for feeling uncomfortable when I see something clearly wrong going on? If the answer is yes, I apologize and promise to stop. There is a user bullying me on this website for months, it was this user who reported me here. And I'm being accused of "edit warring" when I'm just trying to do the right thing. I am an ordinary user. I do not add unsourced genres or unsourced content as a whole. I just want to collaborate, do the right thing, but I thought this site here wasn't a dictatorship. Finally, of the three times I appeared here, it was the same user who reported me. If I'm this monster, why is only one user chasing me? SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

have you noticed that every single entry on your talk page is a complaint about your editing? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpaceHelmetX1&action=history not only by me but also by other users --FMSky (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You are the main reason I'm here. You put me here! SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please stop with the wailing and moaning and please read the explanatory essay regarding consensus at Wikipedia:Silence and consensus? Cheers. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 09:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• SpaceHelmetX1, will you voluntarily agree to not revert/delete any existing genres on any article unless there is consensus on the talk page of the article? Lourdes 11:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't think SpaceHelmetX1 is entirely unjustified in their edits. Challenging unsourced material and removing it is a fair contribution (although edit warring of course should be stopped quickly - especially when they've been blocked for it before). I've not studied the edit histories of each article, but I don't see any reasons given for reverting SpaceHelmetX1 (other than mentioning genre warring). In other words, what's the reason for undoing their edits? I suppose there's a debate to be had that when no sources exist it's fair for an album to reflect the band's genres, but that's all I can see. — Czello ^(music) 11:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Applying genre to something, can indeed be a subjective assessment. And without references can be WP:OR.

But I think the concern here is "how" this is going about. I would suggest going forward that if they remove (or modify) a genre of an article that they copy it to the article talk page and start a discussion thread. If there are references for its applicability from verifiable, reliable sources, I think that's something that can be found out fairly quickly. But edit-warring obviously needs to stop. (Or in other words, per Lourdes.)- jc37 13:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

so is anything gonna happen now? --FMSky (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Not much. If they continue reverting without responding to this ANI discussion, it might lead to a block (might, depending on the circumstances). We'll wait for them to respond. Thank you, Lourdes 03:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree to search for consensus on the article's talk page. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GakugeiU was blocked for WP:ORGNAME. They have an open unblock request and were getting assistance from other editors. Nonetheless, the account TGUwiki was registered a few hours ago, and their userspace page User:TGUwiki/testsandbox is a copy of User:GakugeiU. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPI might be good to confirm if they are the same person. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

No need to go into that.... These are just students trying to test out Wikipedia and they don't seem to be disruptive. I have left a request on their talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 04:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Really? Are they making disruptive edits? No, then leave them the hell alone, man. Jesus H Christ GeneralHamster (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess not everyone has problems with a promotional username account making promotional edits. @Lourdes: has taken the high ground and has warned about the promotional user name instead of blocking. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess block evasion is OK too. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Point noted my friend. I have soft blocked them. You or any other administrator may hard block them in case you may so deem fit. Thanks, Lourdes 03:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by Agilulf2007 at Battle of Adwa

Resolved

 – User blocked 48 hours for edit warring and made aware that they are editing in a contentious topic area Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Agilulf2007 has been persistently been adding/reverting content to the infobox for Battle of Adwa without consensus.

• [47]
• [48]
• [49]
• [50]
• [51]
• [52]
• [53]

See discussion at Talk:Battle of Adwa#Russian involvment relating to the disputed content and what appears to be a rough consensus against these edits. See particularly:

• [54]
• [55]
• [56]

Cinderella157 (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Notified here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Kingsif

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In sort of the opposite of how these things usually go at AN/I, an initial poor showing by Willbb has been followed by relatively conciliatory comments showing an understanding of what they did wrong here. Just as I think Kingsif is entitled to some leniency given Will's behavior, Will is likewise entitled to some leniency given the incivility Kingsif directed at them. So I will forego the block I suggested earlier, and instead:

• Willbb234, you are strongly warned for (non-1RR) edit-warring and for omitting crucial facts in this AN/I report. Given the recency of your community unblock, this is, probably, your last chance, especially with respect to edit-warring. I would strongly encourage you to hold yourself to a 0RR.
• I will hold off on issuing any warning to Kingsif until he's had a chance to respond, but intend to do so after that unless a very good reason not to is provided. Kingsif, feel free to comment below the closed thread; I'm just closing this now because it seems about 95% settled.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

And now, acknowledging Kingsif's likewise reasonably conciliatory response below, he is formally warned for incivility, and warned that a pattern of not-blockable incivil remarks may add up to something blockable after enough time. Profanity and strong language can have their places (as this discussion went on, I kept thinking back to a time I told several students to "stop fucking kicking" the head of a classmate they had jumped, which succeeded in getting their attention and making them stop), but there is a line, and that line was crossed here. Likewise, frustration at disruptive behavior can be mitigatory to a degree, but, as Snow Rise notes below, it does not exempt anyone from CIV. So I would encourage you, Kingsif, to take this as a wake-up call to dial back the sort of language you use when frustrated with other editors, regardless of how reasonable that frustration may be. A subequent instance of incivility may well result in a block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Kingsif went to my talkpage and asked "What the fuck is wrong with you" ([57]). They also suggested I had "reading difficulties", was a vandal, or had a "massive arrogant ego" and told me to "stay away" ([58]). They then said that my action was "malicious" or "dangerously incompetent" in an attempt to convince an admin to block me, and they also proceeded to remove their previous comments as the likely realised how others would perceive them ([59]). Blatant and repeated violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Willbb234 16:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Wasn't Willbb234 literally just unblocked and we're back here for conduct issues? Star Mississippi 16:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is relevant. I don't claim to be on the right side of this dispute but I did remain civil throughout. Willbb234 16:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a note of background, the incident that spawned this also led to this GAN thread where folks unanimously informed Willbb234 that his understanding of the GAN/GAR process is wrong and his actions were disruptive. Throughout that thread, Willbb234 keeps a real WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT vibe. Could Kingsif have communicated the issues with Willbb234's edits without the angry theatrics? Yes definitely. Should Kingsif be sanctioned for saying something mean this once? I would think not. Unless Kingsif has a history of condescending or rude communications, I think we can slap him with a very small trout and move on. Ajpolino (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that editors could chat shit about other editors and they're fine as long as they're on the right side of the dispute.

And, seeing as you're requesting a history of this behaviour, I invite you to read the first two sections of Kingsif's first talk page archive

Also here and here. Willbb234 16:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think @Kingsif should have said what he said before changing it but I also don't think what @Star Mississippi brought up should be dismissed out of hand. @Ritchie333 went out on a limb for you in presenting the review at AN and you went and violated the restriction placed on you a month after being unblocked because you didn't like the outcome of a GA review on an article that failed your review previously? I have to agree with Kingsif in asking why you feel you have the authority to arbitrarily decide when the restriction placed on you is valid or not? --ARoseWolf 17:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I violated the restriction. Willbb234 17:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"making any more than one revert to any page, except Willbb234's own user space, in any 24-hour period" I believe Tamzin's updated description below is a very accurate assessment. Again, I don't agree with how Kingsif approached the situation butand even if I assume good faith that you honestly didn't believe you were violating your restriction I can't reconcile why you think it's okay to unilaterally delist a community elevated GA that went through review just because you don't think it should be a GA. --ARoseWolf 17:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The reverts were performed 3 days apart. Willbb234 17:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

And the second part? Are we just going to ignore or refuse to answer that? --ARoseWolf 17:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I've amended my comment below to reflect that these were instances of edit-warring, but not of 1RR violations. However, having two separate instances, across 3 pages, where you have to rely on "not technically a 1RR violation", so soon after that restriction was imposed, does not bode well, and edit-warring remains a blockable offense regardless of 3RR/1RR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the adjustment and I still agree with your updated assessment. --ARoseWolf 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I've explained my reasoning here Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Willbb234. Editors disagree with me, but I was acting in good faith throughout. Willbb234 17:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Willbb234 Do you remain of the opinion that you can unilaterally delist GAs under these circumstances? If so, do you intend to do so in the future? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand that I am not allowed to delist GAs and I will endeavour to go through the appropriate channels in the future (i.e. GA reassessment). I still believe that I was acting in the spirit of the GA review process and that the article being renominated without prior consultation was a poor decision by Kingsif and sets a bad precedent. Willbb234 19:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Looks like Willbb234 reviewed a good article nomination a couple years ago. It did not pass. In the meantime, it underwent another review and passed. Now, Willbb234 has removed the GA symbol and changed the assessment on the talk page. When appropriately reverted, Willbb234 started to edit war. It was at that point that Kingsif left an indeed quite nasty message. Looks like Kingsif tried to temper that message a few minutes later, and Willbb234 did not allow it, restoring the nasty one because it "shows [Kingsif's] true colors" and not really replying to the substance of Kingsif's complaint. At first I thought Willbb234 simply missed the second review, and that this was just a failure on all sides to AGF, but upon looking at this thread at WT:GAN, apparently he felt that the second review wasn't valid, and instead of starting the review process just decided to consider the second review invalid. Writing "what the fuck is wrong with you" in response to someone edit warring to impose their own rules on an article you've worked on, especially when thinking better of it moments later and rewording, doesn't strike me as something that's going to receive sanctions here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I think that's a fair assessment: it won't. It should, however, at least get a stiff warning from someone capable of wielding the block hammer, however: no matter the circumstances, that is not tolerable conduct, and it's rarely the case that someone who indulges in expressing their frustrations in this way is only doing so/could only do because of those particular circumstances. Additionally, the suggestion that Kingsif attempted to pull back the comment almost immediately is not a super accurate way of describing their supposed cooldown: it was two days before they replaced the aggressively uncivil language, and even then their tone can hardly be called conciliatory on the whole. I do think we have an affirmative responsibility to make it clear to Kingsif that they are expected to maintain a baseline respect for behavioural policy and basic decorum even when dealing with someone abusing process. But I agree, all factors considered, I don't see how there is any likelihood of a sanction.

As to Willbb234, they need at least a warning. The conduct here seems to be either a bad faith effort to circumvent process with regard to the result of the second GAN, or else a profound misunderstanding about how consensus works on this project, either of which requires a response. We're not talking about a super new user here and they should be well aware at this point that they cannot just veto outcomes they disagree with retrospectively: even if it turned out that they were correct (that there was some major procedural flaw with the previous discussion), which I don't see evidence of here, there are tools to review such decisions that they could have availed themselves of. What they chose to do instead is highly disruptive, and if it doesn't get a block in response, this behaviour also deserves a serious warning at a minimum. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a logical and very evenhanded response. I do not condone, in any way, Kingif's responses. They were highly uncivil and should receive a very strong warning, especially in light of previous issues with civility. However Will's disruptive editing and, heretofore, persistence in the belief they should have the authority to circumvent a community consensus and edit war despite a very stern warning to be very careful when reverting, even if it is not a direct violation of their restriction, is the very definition of intractable behavior. --ARoseWolf 18:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there was a community consensus which I "circumvented". If there was one, then I was unaware and I understand that going against consensus is always the wrong thing to do. Willbb234 19:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The GAN and GAR process which was instituted through community discussion and consensus which you decided to amend on your own and for which you were, again, reminded through community consensus that you were wrong at this thread at WT:GAN which you linked to. You were, yet again, reminded here that you were wrong here to which you finally agreed to above (thank you), even if with a caveat. Our community policies and processes are current consensus. --ARoseWolf 19:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• So we have, on Will's part: Two arguable violations of Slow edit-warring around the community 1RR at the GA and its talk (removing something added 2 years ago usually doesn't count as the first revert, but here Will knew he was reverting a specific edit); another arguable violation 2 reverts on their own user talk that were 1RR-exempt but still edit-warring (noting that Willbb was at AN cautioned to be very careful should they make reverts relying on those exceptions) (generally exempt under WP:3RRNO, but only if in line with WP:UP, which I'm not convinced this was); a bizarre insistence on a unilateral authority to delist a GA; bringing this AN/I thread without disclosing Kingsif's attempt to take back some of his comment and Will's own actions to revert that, nor the fact that an admin was already pinged to this and did not act; and, just skimming Will's contribs for greater context, this comment to someone with whom he was in a content dispute, which is barely any better than what he's mad at Kingsif for. I'm strongly inclined to block Will here, and hesitate only as to whether I should do so temporarily or indefinitely. (For Kingsif, an informal warning should suffice.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Edited 17:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC) to address technicalities.

  Temporary or indef? What is the chance Willbb234 will improve? How have they been (other than this incident) since they were last sanctioned?

  I’m usually in favor of a temporary block unless the community decides it’s just not worth putting up with someone any more. Has Willbb234 gotten to that point?

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I must ask why you have looked quite deeply into my actions, but not Kingsif's? I understand that my actions can come under scrutiny in this process, but this seems a little biased, don't you think? Willbb234 17:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Kingsif engaged in moderate incivility and should be warned for it; if I'm the admin to take action here, that's what I'll do. None of what you've alleged, nor that I've seen from reading y'all's argument, makes me think anything more than a warning is warranted. One of the reasons people prefer admins to have some content experience is so we know what it's like to feel a strong attachment to something you've created, and how it feels when someone (rightly or wrongly) comes after that. People tend to get a bit heated, especially if the coming-after is done indelicately. In this case where your action was not just indelicate but entirely out of process, I can only fault Kingsif so much. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are saying (particularly as I have written some GAs myself), but to say that Kingsif "engaged in moderate incivility" is just wrong. There was more than one personal attack and a very rude and aggressive undertone to the whole interaction. I have also provided evidence of a history of poor behaviour. Willbb234 17:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, in part. This was not "moderate" incivility. And I'll go further to say that I disagree with the premise of Tamzin's comments about whether the circumstances justified it: they simply don't. We have policies and a community culture here that make it clear that one does not WP:OWN the content they produce (no matter how much hard work they have put into it in good faith), and that losing your cool and being aggressively hostile are not acceptable--even in cases of direct "provocation".

Now, as a realistic/descriptive matter, people may routinely tailor their feedback in behavioural discussions according to the "veteran editor being pushed by frustrating circumstances" principle. But I do not agree that actually giving voice to this notion as a firm defense for breaking WP:PA/WP:CIV (even as just a "mitigating" factor) is appropriate or advisable: it only enables further such behaviour (in the individual in question and in others). Kingsif therefore should (and I think will, including if Tamzin addresses the matter) get a strong warning for how they approached this situation.

That said, there's observations here from multiple editors that you need to take on board about the relative levels of disruption between your conduct and Kingsif's, and in particular that your own issues seem to be following a pattern. You need to be slower to try to enforce your preferred approach to content and especially need to avoid taking unilateral actions against consensus. Or put more succinctly: less reverts, more discussion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I take your point about the extent of the incivility. Anytime I see incivility, I try to put myself in the shoes of the person saying it, and in this case that left me (and still leaves me) somewhat sympathetic to Kingsif. However, particularly in light of ScottishFinnishRadish's previous warning, which I'd overlooked, I do now agree that a mere "friendly warning" wouldn't cut it here, since this isn't just a one-off case of someone being surprised by an erratic action and lashing out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and I don't meant to overstate my point either: context is very much king here (pun incidental). I just think that when we do modulate our response on that ground, we need to be clear that it doesn't actually make the uncivil conduct itself in any way acceptable in the circumstances. There's a very fine line between "We're going with a warning here, because we acknowledge these are atypical circumstances and we can give the benefit of the doubt about how likely this behaviour is to repeat" and "We are going to just give a warning because the behaviour was understandable in the context."

And worse, for an editor with a pattern of losing their cool, they will often reinterpret the meaning even further to "We're going to let this one slide, because, come on--that guy had it coming and what else were you gonna do?" That's why I feel like, even when everyone in the discussion seems to want to give the "these circumstances deserve leniency" discount to a brightline policy violation, I think it's best not to actually say that part (or at least to heavily embed it in caveats), so the wrong message is not sent. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Will, I think it’s pretty natural - you’ve got Kingsif, an editor with over 50,000 good edits, no blocks and little presence at WP:ANI in an edit dispute with an editor who’s been sanctioned multiple times. I think folks are going to naturally tend to look at you first.

Will you’ve got yourself a WP:BOOMERANG situation here. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I regret my past decisions and understand that my history certainly doesn't help my case, but I believe that even I deserve some protection from personal attacks. Willbb234 17:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

They tried to edit the message to tone it down and you reverted them claiming it "showed their true colours", [60]. Claiming the message "shows their true colours" is itself a personal attack - you're implying that they're a person of poor character based on a message they obviously regret.

You seem to have no qualms about telling other editors to "piss off" [61]. Do you think mockingly calling someone a "big boy" while implying they misused their admin toolkit is civil [62]? Do you think this was a civil message [63] or this [64] or this [65]? Do you think this message was written with a civil tone [66]? Or how about this one [67]? There's someone here with a long history of disruption, incivility and personal attacks... 192.76.8.82 (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

These comments were made prior to me being unblocked, a process which required community discussion and consensus. As I've already said, I believe that even I deserve some protection from personal attacks. Willbb234 19:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Tamzin: Thanks for giving me the chance to respond, I see this played out very quickly when I was not online. I agree that I was impolite. I only quibble with Will's characterisation of anything as "personal attacks": I am not one to believe that profanity and angry tones are attacks, and I don't think WP does, either. I was seeking an explanation or a walkback, not to demean Will, and his responses made it seemingly clear that he knew that. This isn't to excuse my comments: I did regret them, as the same (explanation or walkback) can be achieved (and probably more successfully) with a better attitude, but I feel the characterisation as "personal attacks" is something that is inaccurate and has only now appeared. On this point, it's inconsequential but I want to express my surprise at this ANI having been raised at all, as Will also mocked me and typically when impoliteness has gone both ways, users agree it was the situation and cool off in response. Back on topic, I have already taken the initiative to go over WP:CIVIL, and won't argue with a warning.
  Looking through this thread, I see users have dug up pretty much the whole picture. To complete it, though this is also inconsequential, I assumed bad faith of Will because AGF has its limits; Will has been involved with the GAN process (though not constantly) for years, so I assumed that he understood its processes and, therefore, that the edits were malicious rather than due to not knowing. I realised the attitude was wrong anyway (catch more flies with honey), felt fairly ashamed and was in my head about whether to change my expression or stick my head in the sand for a bit, and you can see the rest. As I say, no excuse. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Tamzin: May I add one more thing, having only seen this now? I just want to put on record my displeasure that talk page "slow downs" from six years ago, me referring to WP:JERK/WP:DICK taken poorly, and a user reporting me for telling them to discuss at article talk instead of my user talkpage, have been both brought up and framed as relevant history. Rookie mistakes, misunderstandings, and content disputes that have been incorrectly brought here serve no purpose, so I think bringing them up is nothing but an attempt to make others negatively prejudiced towards me. Kingsif (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Reporting User: Pufferfishe for 3rr

Hello all! I am reporting User:Pufferfishe for making six reverts at 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States over a six minute period. One of the edits was a minor reversion intended to allow further reverts. Difs: 1, 2,3,4,5,6. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Six consecutive edits, which counts as a single revert in terms of WP:3RR ("a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert", emphasis mine). DanCherek (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention those reverts happened four days ago... Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

My goal when making these edits was to revert a series of major changes made by @Recobben, which were biased, did not cite sources, and no consensus was reached on a talk page. I tried to revert them all with one edit, but that didn’t work, so I had to revert all of them individually. I am rather new to editing Wikipedia, so if there was an easier way, I wasn’t aware of it. Pufferfishe (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pufferfishe You can select a range for the reversions from the history page and undo them at once. Though reversions dont work if the material was edited again later on (meaning outside of the range you selected) and then it has to be done manually. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Googleguy007, why not just take this matter to the article talk page, per WP:BRD? ANI should be your last stop after all other efforts at addressing the editorial impasse have failed, and you are certain that it is because of significant behavioural issues with an involved editor. Instead you are using it to report routine edits which do not give any evidence of being anything other than good faith and are at least potentially valid under policy, without any prior discussion. I can see you're relatively new in terms of edit count, so chalking this up to inexperience with ANI, but please utilize a more fulsome approach to discussion before bringing editorial disputes here: this space is for serious, entractable behavioural problems. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Thar Aung Sacc violating WP:BLP policy after being notified.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thar Aung Sacc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Paing Takhon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Earlier today, User:Khiikiat started a thread at WP:BLPN regarding disputed content [68] in the biography of Paing Takhon, a Burmese performer. Given that the material clearly violated WP:BLP policy, as highly negative and citing utterly inadequate sources (a Facebook page, and a website for some sort of political app - the latter citation being to a page which seems not to even mention the individual concerned) I removed the material, and again informed User:Thar Aung Sacc of the relevant policy, which they had already had their attention drawn to three weeks ago. [69] User:Thar Aung Sacc's only response has been to restore the material, with the edit summary "Strong source". [70] Given the refusal to engage in any sort of dialog after being informed of the requirement for much better sourcing, I'd have to suggest that the only appropriate response would be a block of this single-purpose account until such time as policy compliance can be assured. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

An SPA to push an agenda to make a BLP look bad with poor sourcing needs to be shown the door. I’ve done so. Courcelles (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help with potential sock of sockmaster who won't leave me alone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the sock account of Miggy72 posted on my Commons talk page after I reported recently two sock accounts in the past week and a half and now this new account has posted about the sock master posting his social media links, which may violate our policy on identifying a user in real life. I've reverted the three edits. And the edits should be not be accessible publicly. And his first edit on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iranian-Saudi support map.png the current commons deletion creation of his which violates policy on sock creations] is in my mind further proof of this user's constant inability to understand Wikipedia and Wikimedia policy. Now this person is undoing my edits on my talk page on Commons. I'm asking admins to investigate this bizarre behavior which I'm getting fed up with when this user socks with disruption on here, but now has gone to Wikipedia sister sites to probably stalk me. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Another reversal of my reversal. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

By and large, no one on en.wiki can do anything about anything on commons. I think you need to ask for help from Commons admins there. Or on Meta if you think a global lock would be useful. If I'm misunderstanding and you're asking for action on en.wiki, you should state a little more clearly what you want people to do. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Offense

Well, this Random Ip offended me because of a edit that i have undone on SummerSlam (2023) about a match that is Not confirmed yet, Special:Contributions/2A06:C701:4147:DD00:3416:7F6E:F26A:AFB6 here's the edit with the offense https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1166033933, i really don't like to bring It here, but since he think that is better to offend other people,If is possible, can someone please block him?thank you StrangerMan123 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The IP editor that left an eff off type of edit summary has been warned (for triggering the edit filter) by an uninvolved user (Taking Out The Trash). Dawnseeker2000 01:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

And StrangerMan123 left a needless rant on the IP's Talk page. And I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it was a needles rant, he offended me, and i just come there to say that he can't do it, if i offended he too yes i think it was needless and i would be just doing the same thing, but i Just Said for he to stop offend because it's rude and disrespectiful, he can't say that for people, here we have to treat everyone with respect, and he disrespect me, i just think he should hear, or in this case, read that. Anyway, for me that's gone, i don't want to make this thing a big deal, and also, thank you for semi-protect that page, he was not the only one to vandalize there, so really thank you, Good Night StrangerMan123 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@StrangerMan123, please do not gender other users unless they have stated which pronoun they wish to use. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for that, won't happen again StrangerMan123 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO StrangerMan123 should be trouted for the rant on the talk page. All it's going to do is make the IP respond with more personal attacks, not diffuse the situation. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I asked for help after being offended, and now it seems that I was the one who made the mistake, I am really sad about all this, i'm sorry about it, if anybody want I will remove that message, for me this matter is already over. StrangerMan123 (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I read what is trouted, and i saw that it seemed to be a joke haha ​​i hope i understood that right, i really did something silly, so yes, i deserve to be trouted, i ended up getting too mad with the offense and didn't think straight, i shouldn't have gone on the talk page from the ip, if somebody want to trout me, yeah its ok, i kinda deserve it, If something like that happens again, I leave it aside StrangerMan123 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Just hope that he stops to vandalize and offend, thank you. StrangerMan123 (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Persistent WP:NPOV and violations: specifically, bias in sources

I am requesting admin action against Alltan (talk · contribs) for persistent violations against WP:NPOV for over a year on contentious pages under Balkan/Eastern European discretionary sanctions. The violations specifically relate to removing and keeping sources on pages based on their own arbitrary rules that push a particular POV narrative. In addition to removing sourced text on contentious pages without engaging in a talk page discussion:

March/April 2022:

• Alltan removed significant amounts of text on Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–1878) as their opinion was that they had to remove sourced work as their belief of the sources was that The Saint Sava society was a NGO responsible for disseminating Serbian propaganda in "Old Serbia". (as per their article in English).[71]
• Alltan removed significant amounts of text on 1901 massacres of Serbs as their personal opinion was that they had to remove sourced work as the sources were Milosevic era, when many Serbian academics produced works with nationalist and exaggerated claims of victimization that suited the government's nationalistic narrative.[72]. Alltan was subsequently warned by an administrator on their talk page that The idea that Serbian sources are "nationalist" and "exaggerated" just because they are Serbian, while non-Serbian sources are good, is very dangerous. Please, do not make such radical edits without prior discussion.[73]

June 2022

• Alltan was made aware of the Balkan/Eastern European discretionary sanctions on their talk page.[74]

March 2023

• After a revert of their initial removal by another user, Alltan returned to the page Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–1878) and once again removed the aforementioned sourced content as their opinion was that rv, I have stated my reasons already The Saint Sava society was a NGO responsible for disseminating Serbian propaganda in "Old Serbia".[75]

July 2023

• Alltan removed sourced text from the Northern Epirus page without even a summary.[76]
• I removed content on the page Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars as the sources did not meet WP:RS, specifically the sources were internet blog page citations, in addition one source stemmed from a thesis, violating WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Alltan reverted my removal as they were of the belief that the internet blog page I removed was Albanianhistory.net is RS[77]. Alltan followed up with another rv stating that Albanianhistory is RS, start a RSN.[78] What is interesting is that Alltan has previously removed a Greek internet blog citation on the page Varympompi without a RSN[79], removed a thesis on the page

Euboea under WP:SCHOLARSHIP[80] and removed a citation based on WP:TERTIARY on the Northern Epirus page.[81]

Summary: Alltan is applying a double standard personal rulebook to Balkan/Eastern European pages. They remove citations on Greek and Serbian affiliated pages under the banner WP:RS, while stepping in to stop the same actions being done on Albanian affiliated pages. For all of the aforementioned edits, Alltan has not engaged with anybody on a talk page and despite administrator warnings, their behaviour has not changed. Based on this evidence, I believe their is a violation of WP:NPOV and assistance is needed to curtail this. Thank you for your consideration. ElderZamzam (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the Balkans. These look like content disputes, have you gone to the talkpages of any of these articles? If so, link to the discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Several more examples (playing fast and loose with source, edit-warring without discussion):
• 1. At Aegina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Alltan reverts claiming "I don't see that in the source", but it is in the source, and the IP editor proves it. Either they did not read the source they were using, or are not telling the truth in the edit summary. No attempts to discuss on the talkpage.

• 2. At Psara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), they repeatedly remove the word "small" [82] [83], even though it is sourced to a top notch source, the quote is provided, and no source contradicts this. The source is in Greek, but this is easily translated with Google Translate, and Alltan has shown no problem using Greek sources in the past [84]. No attempts to discuss at the talkpage.

• 3. At Northern Epirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), they remove 17 kb of text and source [85] [86] claiming the removed sources "do not mention Northern Epirus", which is easily disproven [87]. When I painstakingly re-add the material using different sources, they claim WP:TERTIARY to remove it [88], even it's a perfectly good source. They also remove more text claiming "dead source" [89], even though it is easily fixed [90]. Alltan's contribs history at that article speaks for itself [91].

• 4. At Pashalik of Yanina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), casual, drive-by reverting of well-sourced information, with quote provided [92] [93]. Talkpage participation is minimal, and appears tokenistic in nature [94].

• 5. Revert-warring without talkpage discussion at Georgios Kountouriotis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [95].

• 6. Ditto at Odysseas Androutsos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [96] [97] [98] [99].

• 7. Ditto at Laskarina Bouboulina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [100] [101].

• 8. Ditto at Dimitrios Botsaris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [102] [103] [104].

• Looking at Alltan (talk · contribs)'s overall recent contribs, we see a lot of reverts and removals, and very little talkpage participation. Khirurg (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  I looked at 2 since it seemed simple as you said there was a quote. But FWICT, although it is true Alltan remove the word "small" this doesn't seem to be the locus of the dispute. Instead the locus of the dispute seems to be whether to simply describe them as "Arvanites" or say they are "Albanians" who established an "Arvanite" community. The removal of the word small seems more incidental than anything. Perhaps most importantly though, the quote you refer to is in Greek. Does Alltan, understand Greek? If they don't, then it seems to me they could have easily missed this quote. The quote which has been translated doesn't say anything about small. Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  As for the talk page thing, well perhaps the overall pattern is problematic, but for this particular edit Talk:Psara only has a bot message from 5 years ago so it's a pot kettle black situation however you look at it. Nil Einne (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry I misread the dispute and will re-write my comment. Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  I looked at 2 since it seemed simple as you said there was a quote. But it seems to be more than a dispute over the word small although that seems to be one specific focus of the dispute. More importantly though when I first looked I didn't see this quote. The only quote I saw didn't say anything about small. Looking more carefully, I did find there is a quote in Greek and a machine translation does suggest this says "small". Does Alltan understand Greek? Because if not, it seems to me they could have easily missed this quote like me. Sure it would have helped if they had asked on the talk page, but likewise someone else could have posted on the talk page which hasn't been touched since a bot over 5 years ago. Or at least, translate the quote so it's harder to miss in the article. I.E. Any talk page complaints in this situation are basically a pot, kettle, black situation. I'd note that in your edit summary [105] you said "sources". Which one of the other three sources also says small? It isn't in the other quote which has been translated, although it's possible it's somewhere else in the source. There's no way for anyone looking at this dispute from afar to know, since again there was no further explanation on the talk page. Sure someone could look into each source, two of which aren't in English, and find out. But since you already know, you could have explained on the talk page so it's clearer to anyone who comes into this dispute that you are indeed in the right rather than just doing the same thing you're correctly faulting Alltan for namely trying to explain your edits in a dispute in a CTOP area solely via edit summaries. It may be there's a wider pattern of lack of use of talk pages by Alltan not shared by you, and that would be a concern. However when you come to ANI it's really unhelpful to show cases when all we can see is no one seems to know how to use talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Nil, unlike you, Alltan is heavily involved in the topic area and has been for a long time, and besides he has no problem using Greek sources in the past ([106]). The behavior at Psara fits in with a broader pattern of playing fast and loose with the source, as at Aegina (and that source is in English). In the last month I have ~80 talkpage contribs, Alltan has 36 (and most of them extremely brief). Khirurg (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  I should note that my reply was largely based on this version [107] as I didn't notice the changes, which was also why I initially missed that Alltan has specifically removed the word small (which was significant, since it was unclear to me if Alltan was specifically disputing the word small or simply trying to change something else and inadvertently removed the word small). If Alltan has used Greek sources before, then I do hope they understand Greek since using a machine translation to add content is generally not acceptable, and this does make them missing the quotation because of not understanding it not an issue. I'd note though the fact that it can be simply checked by machine translation is not that important, since while true and something I did, it's also easy to miss if you don't speak Greek. So it's far better if when there is a dispute rather than expecting other people to work out what source supports the claim being made, someone explains on the talk page this source say this which supports the statement so please don't remove it. And of course if someone continues to revert without joining the discussion then it's easier to see yeah that editor does seem to be disruptive. In other words IMO this a a lot less of a clear example of Alltan being in the wrong than it should be because it's still a case where both sides refused to discuss their preferred version. It does seem on the whole Alltan uses the talk page a lot less than you (considering they also seems to have more edits than you in the past month) which is a concern and they need to do better, but so do you even if you might be closer to what we need. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs). In response:

• Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars: I raised a discussion, no response.[108]
• Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–1878): Statement made by Alltan on the talk page, mirrored the edit summary.[109]
• 1901 massacres of Serbs: No disussions.[110]

Our only interaction

• Botushë[111]: On this page, Alltan removed cited content as Kalezic is an archpriest-staurophore of the Serbian Orthodox Church, not RS, Novak was a an Pan-Yugoslav nationalist writer, wording[112] On the talk page, I asked Alltan for a link to a ruling on this, in response I was directed by Alltan to WP:RS and no link to a ruling.[113] ElderZamzam (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

So it sounds like what you're saying is sometimes one of you goes to the talk page and the other one refuses to, sometimes neither of you go to the talk page and when we're lucky sometimes both of you do actually engage on the talk page? Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

In the example on Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–1878), the only instance where Alltan initiated a talkpage discussion (and even then just a paste of his edit-summary), ElderZamZam was not involved at all. I have also updated my evidence with several examples of Alltan edit-warring without discussing. Khirurg (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne there are only three pages where we have crossed over in terms of disputed edits. I do my upmost to add requests to go to the TP in my edit summaries, opened up a discussion on a talk page and have interacted with Alltan on the talk page. These attempts have not led to any consensus building and a look at Alltan's history and current behavior shows that they have had warnings and ample opportunity to change their behavior, but have not. Alltan is in most cases making the dramatic changes to the pages so the onus is on them to open up a talk page to explain their sudden and significant changes. ElderZamzam (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alltan: I want to be clear that although I've criticised the lack of talk page usage by those complaining about you, it's clear that you too are failing to use the talk page. You need to do better. The key point IMO as in a lot of these ANIs is that no side should be waiting for the other party to initiate discussion on the talk page. Once you get into an edit war, it's incumbent on all parties involved to start discussion. In other words, someone needs to just do it rather than expecting the other party to start it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Nil Einne:. Thanks for checking all aspects of the issues under discussion. There's no doubt that in the examples which have been brought forth, I have not engaged in the talkpage as much as I should. I have had discussions about such topics with EZ and Kh. many times in the last two years. It wouldn't be an exaggeration if I said that I have had a monthly discussions like the ones mentioned with either Kh. or EZ.

Many of the edits which I removed involve baseline interpretation of WP:RS and I didn't believe that I have to explain again to experienced editors why some sources are not reliable. This is the case regarding Attacks on Serbs during the Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–1878), where in fact I'm the only one who used the talkpage [114] to explain to experienced users like EZ that the 1928 publication of an interwar nationalist organization is not RS. I've had a similar experience with EZ many times where I have to explain basic requirements of reliable sources and sometimes because I've posted the same explanation over and over again, I just don't engage in the talkpage as much as I should.

In Psara, I placed the first edit and then my edit was followed by intervention by IPs and other users including Kh.. The first edit which I added was based on this quote Albanians also settled on the islands of Psara, Kynthos, Kea, Samos, Aegina and Skopelos, but were soon assimilated by the local Greeks. by an expert historian from Greece on the subject. Later edits added the word "small" based on another source and excluded the source which I had added from the formulation of the sentence. I didn't start another debate in the talkpage but I reverted and just wrote NPOV in the summary as the exact phrasing used should reflect multiple sources, not just one. Kh. reverted and his summary is rv POV-pushing, the sources say "small", but only the source used by Khirurg claims so and not the one which I added. In fact, Kh. ignored the source which I added and claims something which is factually wrong in his summary as only the source he supports uses the word "small". Fundamentally, this is an issue of how to reflect what multiple sources write about a subject without doing so by way of WP:SYNTH and I've explained many times to Khirurg that no reliable source should be excluded in favor of another source which may be more preferable to some users.

If you need me to I can explain in detail how the other diffs which were brought forth are linked to past discussions where I have been involved. In the diffs brought forth, I recognize that I should use the talkpage more often and I will do so in the future even in cases where I've discussed the same issue in other talkpage. As a "closing statement" to a comment which was intended to be much shorter, I feel the need to mention that when someone is confronted with the same situation over and over again by some users it can be quite exhausting and even overwhelming and this leads to not following required procedures properly.Alltan (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as "I'm sorry, I'll do better in future". In addition to the lack of discussion, there is misuse of sources (the Aegina example) and the casual edit-warring across multiple articles. At a minimum a formal logged warning is due. Khirurg (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me like any admin is interested in looking into this further. If I'm right, I would suggest next time it's taken to WP:ARE. I assume everyone here is already aware of WP:CTOP for Eastern Europe and the Balkans. If not, I suggest someone give the appropriate alert. I would emphasise again that I expect a requests at ARE is likely to be far more successful if what admins can see if that everyone besides whoever you're complaining about always tries to the discuss but the editor your complaining about often does not. And if the discussion reaches an impasse, you look at ways i.e. WP:Dispute resolution to resolve this and come to a consensus. If all admins see is both sides often fail to discuss or at least there is no consensus which demonstrates one editor is clearly in the wrong, then you might get no result, or perhaps just both sides will be sanctioned which I assume isn't the intention. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE of Nostalgia Zone (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nostalgia Zone (talk · contribs) seems to be a problematic editor to say the least. For example:

• Adding links to dab pages (December 2021)
• Not adding sources (July 2022)
• Restoring unsourced content (September 2022)
• Edit warring (November 2022)
• More edit-warring (December 2022)
• Unconstructive editing (also December 2022)

A perusal of their talk page shows the problems have persisted: constantly failing to check their links and linking to disambiguation pages; edit-warring; repeated addition of unsourced content. Recently they keep re-adding a "list of anchor stores" on Northland Center against consensus, refusing to discuss the addition or removal. All of their recent edits are adding "list of anchor stores" to shopping malls in Michigan (example), in violation of WP:NOR, WP:IINFO, and WP:NOTDIR.

I warned the user back in February and they promised to stop, at which point @Magnolia677: stepped in to warn them again and they again promised to stop. However, they clearly have not at all.

In short, there is a clear pattern of disruptive and unconstructive behavior, even after multiple warnings and promises to stop. The user clearly has no intention of changing their ways, leading me to believe major WP:COMPETENCE issues are at play here. Virtually none of their edits have been beneficial, leading me to believe that the only viable solution at this point is a block. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked till they understand the issue and commit to not disrupt. Thanks, Lourdes 05:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ettrig mass addition of longer leads.

Ettrig has been systematically and rapidly addressing "Lead is too short" templates with low-quality summaries. They have been asked if they are using large language models on their talk page and not wanted to respond. Whatever their methodology may be, it is resulting in subpar quality additions. While Ettrig maintains they are high enough quality to be constructive, I find the removal of maintenance templates (which draws editors attention to areas of concern) after the addition of consistently low-quality additions to be non-constructive. This rises above content dispute: Ettrig is unwilling to engage with concerns over their edits, and is leaving a huge collection of unmarked problems for other editors to clean up.

Issues include:

1. Parroting unsourced information in the body of a BLP, reinforcing it's presence in the article.
2. Completely disregarding formatting, such as italics for titles of works
3. Refusing to add wikilinks
4. Bizarre non-phrases that sound meaningful at first but fall apart when you actually try to read them.

Some examples of their poor additions and my attempts to fix them:

1. [115][116] The film was criticized for being loud, busy, and dull, but Jim Carrey's performance as The Riddler was divisive. His iconic green spandex Riddler suit and his character have been recognized in Batman legacy, with references in subsequent Batman media and adaptations. The first sentence is not two contrasting phrases, so the "but" makes no sense. "Have been recognized in Batman legacy"...?
2. [117][118]
3. [119][120]
4. [121][122]
5. [123][124] Includes a summary of an example in the article that becomes meaningless when described the way it was.
6. [125][126]
7. [127][128] The game's weaponry is diverse, ranging from flamethrowers to acid guns, and weapons give off heat, making cooling upgrades crucial. Missiles and bombs, however, don't generate heat but have their limitations.
8. [129][130]

While many of these problems are subtle, and some of the leads are mostly fine, in their sum total, they are an issue that becomes bigger the more Ettrig refuses to engage with concerns.

Previous discussions here: [131][132][133][134] Cerebral726 (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Their response to why their low-quality AI-generated intro replacements don't include wikilinks or formatting: "My very rough estimate is that that would require 200% more time. In other words: I would then produce one third as many summaries. I would then feel less productive. This work is extremely boring. What makes me do it anyway is that I feel I get a lot of work done."

So... they're comfortable making Wikipedia worse if it means they can feel more productive in doing so. Shocked to see someone struggling with this level of WP:CIR after 15 years. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8D1A:E4D3:C12C:9620 (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

They have made 1000s of edits in the same vein, starting with this one it seems, with the descriptor intro by Chat GPT. The edit contains multiple problems including the line He played in the Walker Cup three times and won the English Amateur for a second time in 1953; This falsely states Gerald Micklem either competed in the Walker Tournament 3 times in one year, or competed in the Walker Tournament 3 times total (which is false, it was 4 times). This is the exact kind of subtle falsehoods that make this type of editing so problematic. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay so if they're admitting to using chatbots to generate very poor quality edits, we should end this now. I've looked at them and a lot of their edits are still standing but yes the quality is pretty bad and most would need a lot of work or outright removal. And it's clear it's what they're doing from their edit times. So we should block the account now until they agree to not use AI tools to write garbage. At the end of the day this will take longer to clean up than they're spending "writing" it all. This is not a net benefit. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

In fact I've gone ahead and done so. Their edits are a net negative, no matter how they're built. Net negative means no editing privileges, AI or not. Anyone up for doing a mass revert? Canterbury Tail talk 19:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ettrig has had similar issues before involving unilaterally moving maintenance edits against community consensus:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#User:Ettrig

See this draft article:

• Draft:Automatic Curriculum Learning

Look at their talk page; starting in about 2017, exchanges reflect a "my way or the highway" mentality:

• User talk:Ettrig

This long-term editor has clearly become a liability, not an asset.

- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

See also:

• User talk:Crowsus#Our edit war

@Crowsus

- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail, @Cerebral726, this is going to be huge and painful. I started doing some reverts -- there are several thousand of these. The easiest are the rollbacks and the simple undos. Less recent edits can't simply be undone and have to be done by going into the page history. In some cases, the lead has already been partially edited since Ettrig's big addition -- should I keep the lead or throw the whole thing out? Maybe I have to leave a talk page message.

This is a serious reliability issue.

How do we organize this to get it all done?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the errors can go undetected too easily to not just mass revert them. The Gerald Micklem example shows how easily something can appear correct while being subtly wrong. Therefore, we have to presumably work through them, trying not to undo constructive work unrelated to the lead that's been done in the meantime. Even if the lead has been edited a bit, it's too easy for something to slip by. It'd probably be best to leave a link to this thread on the talk page, with the advise that anyone who wishes to use the lead created by Ettrig as a basis should be extremely cautious and should make sure to fix the formatting, wikilinks, and factual errors before reintroducing the content. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I concur. The easy ones are the easy ones, the other ones are the precise reason I blocked them. Hard to review and requiring a lot of manual oversight that the editor didn't make when they inserted them. I'm honestly not sure what the best solution is. As you say we risk removing valid data, but there's so much poor quality edits and potentially false information that could slip through. Due to the effort and risks to do otherwise I'd advocate just removing the paragraphs they inserted, putting the maintenance tags back and letting normal article development take its course. But I'd also support hearing other ideas. It sounds a lot like the Ardfern situation where hundreds of articles were hit to remove the paragraphs they'd inserted due to potential copyright issues. Canterbury Tail talk 11:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mako001 you perform mass rollbacks. Can I get your opinion on this? Canterbury Tail talk 11:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Kill-It-With-Fire might be helpful. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that the most appropriate way to approach it to revert the whole lot (all their expansions to the lead since they started messing about with LLMs), and anyone who wishes to salvage anything can then reinstate whatever they are willing to take responsibility for. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I would endorse that. The sooner it's done, the better, so that additional edits have less time to accumulate on top. XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Same here.—Alalch E. 00:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: with around 97% of their edits semi/automated, Mako001 doesn't need any encouragement playing the MMORPG. SN54129 12:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Reporting User:Anubhavklal again, seems like they wouldn't stop

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reporting User:Anubhavklal again, previously reported at "Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1133#Reporting_User:Anubhavklal", since I don't see any change to their disruptive behavior with article moves, disregard to WP:COMMONNAME and general apathy towards Wikipedia rules and guidelines. A clear violation of WP:ARBIP and a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. While it started of as disregard of article moves against WP:COMMONNAME - [135] [136] [137] [138], disregar of WP:COMMONNAME in edits – [139] [140] [141] and being disruptive [142][143] [144] [145] [146], followed by a plethora of move requests, some of which are obvious POV, like this one, which they did after being reverted here.

Now today they resorted to 'closing' RM discussions [147] [148] [149] themselves, which should be the job of uninvolved users per WP:RM, not proposers like them or involved editors. One such move discussion doesn't even have any response [[150]] from other users. Then they proceeded to move the articles [151] [152] [153]. This is a highly disruptive behaviour by someone trying to game the system / disregard it at every turn as part of their POV. I'd request strict action against this user. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Anubhavklal was told that an independent person adjudicates move discussions on 23 June 2023. So he/she cannot say that he/she did not know. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverting a close

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Minor_alteration_to_WP:NOTDIRECTORY

I closed this discussion which was listed at WP:CR, and now two of those who opposed in the discussion are reverting the implementation of the close, which is clearly disruptive. I've responded at both of their talk pages. And both seem to think that implmenting a close is a WP:BOLD edit, which is of course, not the case.

As I am WP:UNINVOLVED, I'm really disinclined deal with them relitigating the discussion and and trying whatever they can to try to get me to revert the closure. To my eye, this is beyond merely asking me to clarify the close - which I have.

At this point, I'm going to re-implment the close again.

I am a firm believer in "many eyes", so I welcome that.

And finally, if any other WP:UNINVOLVED admin would like to take over the close at their discretion, they are welcome to do so. - jc37 15:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no plausible reading under which your changes to the policy, which were virtually undiscussed in the discussion you closed, can be interpreted as an implementation of that discussion. Per WP:CONLEVEL, significant consensus among a large number of editors is required to change a policy page; simply closing a discussion where the proposal you implemented received minimal attention is insufficient, which means that the wording of your closure cannot support the changes you wanted to make. And in any case, the thing to do when an edit you made on a policy page is reverted (whether you believe it to be in implementation of an existing consensus or not) is to take it to talk and reassess, not to editwar it in. As I'm sure you're aware, believing that consensus backs your edits is not a justification for edit warring - certainly not on a major policy page, where changes are to be made slowly and conservatively. Your closure can reasonably be taken as an admonition for further discussion; it cannot and does not support immediately removing the sentence in question. --Aquillion (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

As an editor who did not participate in the discussion in question and has no involvement in the underlying issue, I would note that (i) this appears to be an RfC close where the closer has made a decision that is outside the scope of what the RfC asked, which (while not strictly forbidden) is likely to be contentious, and (ii) the closer appears willing to edit-war the language of their close on a policy page, away from the status quo and against the objections of multiple editors. As far as I understand our community norms, this is not really aligned with the conduct expected of an administrator.

Also, opening discussion on ANI as a behavioural issue (presumably, about other editors' behaviour) rather than opening a review of their own close strikes me as a rather bold move, and possibly tone deaf at the very least. Newimpartial (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Reverting a close is a behavioural issue. That said, either venue is fine with me. - jc37 16:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there might be some merit to what @Newimpartial has said about the close, but it really is irrelevant because of how it was handled by the reverting editors. They responded in the wrong way, and handled the close by reverting when they should not have. At that point it then becomes an issue of responding to their disruption so taking care of whatever issues there might have been with the close are now back seat to mitigating disruption. They forced admin action from jc37 in this case essentially forfeiting the immediate due process they would have otherwise been entitled to from jc37 by their own disruption. Huggums537 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Actually, after reading more carefully, I disagree with what was said. I think it was within scope, only "contentious" because disruptive opposers wanted to revert, and what is being called "edit warring to reinstate a closure" could (and should) also just as easily be interpreted as controlling disruption. Updated on 19:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with Aquillion. Closer's are limited to assessing consensus of the matter under discussion; when they go beyond that, as they clearly did here, it becomes no different to any other WP:BOLD edit.

To explain further, as part of that RfC a workshopping section was opened to discuss alternative options. In that, an editor proposed closing this proposal and opening a new one, when they said We should scrap this proposal and start over with a proposal to remove the line about disambiguation pages from WP:NOT altogether.

It was reasonable for most editors in opposition to such a proposal to not interpret it as being under consideration in the current RfC, and thus not respond to it. This is actually behavior that I generally encourage; it is rarely useful for editors who outright oppose a proposal to contribute to workshops on the proposal, and I generally consider expressing such opposition to be disruptive to the workshopping process. One of the reasons I so oppose this close is that it would require such behavior going forward.

Considering all of this, I asked Jc37 to instead relist the discussion, and make it clear that this alternative proposal was in fact one being considered in this RfC. Given the lack of clarity, this seemed the most reasonable path forward. However, they declined to do that, saying As I noted in the close, there was no consensus as to what (if anything) should replace the text. So feel free to start a new RfC concerning that if you wish. But your decision to join in a discussion (or not) was your choice, the same as everyone else.

I also note that they are currently at four reverts; they have declined to bring themselves into compliance with 3RR. BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a close, challenge it. Don't just edit war. That's the behavioral issue. Aquillion or BilledMammal should've opened a thread at AN instead of edit warring their preferred version contrary to the [current, at least] outcome of the discussion. Simple as that. Maybe it'll be overturned. It's not like the close was to say "you don't have to follow BLP anymore" or something with big consequences -- it's removing a line from a policy that's covered in an existing guideline. I'm not saying it should be removed, but it's hardly the sort of dire thing that demands an aggressive WP:IAR response. Just go to AN and challenge the close. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Is "implementing one's closure of an RfC concerning a policy page" covered by one of the exceptions listed at WP:3RRNO? Because if it is, I seem to have missed it. Newimpartial (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No, but what does that have to do with what I said? I mean, jc37 technically didn't breach 3RR (first edit wasn't a revert), but yeah, they shouldn't have kept going either, of course. Someone else should've stepped in, page-blocked everyone edit warring on a policy page and/or reinstated Jc37's edit with protection pending an actual close challenge. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood, but when you said That's the behavioral issue, you seemed to have been talking about the reverts to the close, and not about the edit-warring to restore the close once reverted. Also, q.v. WP:WRONGVERSION - I am not aware of any policy mandating that the new version (reflecting the close) should be in place while the edit-warring is resolved and the close challenge takes place. If anything, it seems to me that whether or not the first edit is counted as a revert (and it seems technically to have been one), revert-warring to defend one's own implementation of a closure isn't really called for during any kind of dispute over P&Gs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Admins have authority to intervene and protect consensus from disruption per WP:CONADMIN. This doesn't apply to fixing preferred personal versions in edit wars, but it certainly applies to this case so "version status" is essentially irrelevant since the crux of the matter was protecting the consensus from disruption as opposed to being about who gets the last say so about particular versions. Admins are usually indemnified from being accused of edit warring in the normal course of this type of duty. Huggums537 (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a case where the admin was edit warring to preserve their own edit; he/she was therefore involved. See WP:INVOLVED.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

For the admin to have been involved in a dispute, there would have had to have been a dispute to begin with. This was active prevention of disruption to the established consensus process as laid out by policy. Any so called dispute by the active parties causing the disruption was invalidated and/or replaced by the emerging new urgent fact that they were now the cause of immediate disruption to the consensus process that required admin intervention. I agree they should have waited for another admin to do it, and I have no doubt whatsoever that another one would have done so. I was going to restore the consensus myself with the exact same edit summary, but jc37 beat me to it, so I think they just acted hastily out of knowing for sure this was way out of line, and not thinking about how it might look later on. Huggums537 (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

In other words, you can't justify the fact that just because disruptive editors opposed the change somehow constitutes a "dispute" between jc37 and them. Otherwise, anybody who opposed a change would automatically be allowed to edit war or disruptively remove closures without being required to formally dispute on the basis that they have already "disputed" since it would be obvious by their oppose votes. If we allow this, and forgo the dispute process, then that would be really bad news... Huggums537 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I fully protected the page when I saw a string of reverts on my watchlist and left a note on the talk page. I see now that I did that after the discussion here was opened (although I've only just seen this). Any admin should feel free to remove the full protection, but if/when you do please reinstate the indefinite semi-protection. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Also worth noting here that Newimpartial has started WP:AN#Closure review - WP:NOT where the merits or otherwise of the close can be discussed. Discussion of behaviour should remain here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm pretty much in agreement with Rhododendrites. I have a very dim view of people who attempt to thwart the implementation of consensus reached through our formal dispute resolution processes. Reverting a closer's implementation of an RfC is not some acceptable alternative to challenging the close itself. The closer being overly assertive in forcing through their close is not a valid EW exception. But I have a lot more sympathy for the closers than the challengers in this situation and the tag team elements don't help that in the least. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with @Barkeep49 and Rhododendrites:. Reverting a close [consensus] just because you disagree seems "way out of process". (Little nod to Barkeep there, lol.) Huggums537 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Updated on 23:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - yeah, in general you shouldn't revert a close, but equally the closer should have engaged with the concerns of Aquillon and BM, per ADMINACCT - "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions". JC37's comments at the User_talk:Aquillion#Closure_implementation thread are entirely focused on the edit warring, sidestepping the query about the close itself.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Jc37 engaged more thoroughly on the merits of the close at User talk:BilledMammal, however * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Some small trouts and a strong recommendation to close this discussion

Forgive the presumption of making a subsection so early in the thread for my one comment, but I feel very strongly that the solution here is very clear under existing policy and procedure. For my part, having taken about forty minutes to do a somewhat detailed (but by no means exhaustive) review of that rather voluminous thread, I'm not sure that I can see the consensus that Jc37 found in it. It's rather a complex discussion of course, so reasonable minds may vary, but even giving the benefit of the doubt on some closer calls, I'm just not sure there's enough there to close for consensus on that outcome.

That said: there's an established tool for addressing these situations--a closure review at AN. That is definitely the process that Aquillion and BilledMammal should have availed themselves of as soon as they had qualms about the close. Edit warring a policy page is never the right solution in such a scenario. Of course, they may have been unaware of the option: even a fairly established editor might be unaware that AN is the right forum for these situations, since only one closed discussion in several hundred gets a review. But at this juncture, there is no question what the next step should be. Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and Jc37 probably should have attempted to deescalate the situation once it got this point by opening the closure review themselves, rather than bringing the matter here (which does sort of imply disruption or other behavioural issues, even when care is taken to present the dispute neutrally).

Everyone's operating in good faith here though, so I do not slap you with the trouts directly, but rather gently waft their aroma towards you all and point one floor up (or is it down?) to AN. But there's no real purpose in keeping this discussion open--unless we just want to break with normal process and open a subsection specifically for reviewing the close here and now. Not sure if that is proper under an IAR basis or not, though. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you are showing a very generous amount of good faith to those who caused the disruption considering the fact they were told multiple times they should take the review process to AN so saying they might have been unaware is more than generous, it is actually technically inaccurate, but I agree with the idea of mild trouts all around since the admin should have also been aware they had other options as well. Huggums537 (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I must have missed where they didn't drop the stick after being told about AN. But if that's the case, no one can be claim to be unaware of the proper approach next time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just a quick note: I'm a big proponent of AGF. However, in this case, in hindsight, I think both editors should be thankful that I merely reverted, and asked them to self-revert, and talked with them, instead of just posting here for others' to address their disruption. Regardless, hopefully they now understand that what they did was disruptive, and others may not be as kind as I am.

As for the close, I have self-reverted part of it to allow for further discussion.

I wish to say "Thank You" to everyone who has commented. Happy editing... - jc37 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Reporting User talk:2601:647:5F00:6BA0:49E9:1C54:D079:7580 for WP:TPA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Repeated abuse of their own talk page, see 1, 2, 3 and adding false WP:SOCK tags to themselves, see 4, 5. ARandomName123 (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering said user put Itcho in one of their edits, likely is a WP:SOCK. 123Writer ^talk 16:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncivil IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 121.98.204.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP user 121.98.204.148 has been editing from that address for at least a year and a half. They were blocked for two weeks in January for "Personal attacks or harassment" which they blew off. Since that block, the IP has continued their inappropriate behavior. Some are edit summaries with name calling like "you fool" and "idiot". There is substantial amount of inappropriate criticism directed towards individuals and Wikipedia editors generally: "WP is still full of s***t editing" and "Got to get rid of some of the usel;ess ediotprs somehow". This month, in reply to requests to be civil, they gave this reply: You fugging\g fool! I was being WP:BOLD because there is no consensus needed for a glaringly obvious edits. FFS! THis why I don't bother logging on. Too many fugwit editors. After further warnings–including one from me earlier today (UTC) specifically regarding their shouting–the IP wrote an edit summary of IT IS A SHORT ARTICLE> U CANT SAY MUCH ABOUT IT FFS. I don't think this editor has any interest in conforming their behavior to community expectations. I request a lengthy block. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and there's probably a WP:LOUTSOCK aspect of this per this comment: Kind regards from a disillusioned editor with high edit count. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for two months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RodRabelo7 misconduct

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. 17 July I wrote a message for RodRabelo7 regarding his thanks spam, which they have sent me ten within a minute. They also edited my userpage few days ago. Vanthorn also has attempted to make contact with them, but we were reverted with the provocative summary "cleaning up bs". Today, I've made another attempt to dialogue with them, but I was reverted again. Looking over their contribs, I've noticed that they created a lot of implausible redirects, which clearly meet WP:R3. I've requested the deletion of a few, but they undid my request, clearly disrespecting the advice on the notice: "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" Ertrinken 22:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Before I even try to defend myself, it should be highlighted that the account “Ertrinken” was banned on Portuguese-language Wikipedia due to being a sockpuppet of long-term abuser and troll Pórokhov (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email).

Pórokhov is considered a long-term abuser for more than a decade now, and is globally locked. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: What are you talking about? I'm not this person at all. You've been blocked there too. We are both blocked on Portuguese Wikipedia, this fact doesn't allow you to send me this blatant spam of 10 thanks within a minute. Ertrinken 22:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

How about instead of mudslinging, you address the OP? This is not the Portuguese Wikipedia, and it is certainly not the venue to litigate misbehavior there. Ravenswing 23:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I followed the case of the sockpuppet accusation involving Ertrinken on ptwiki, and I expressed my opinion against the accusation since no concrete evidence was presented, only suspicion. The checkusers only pointed to a probable relationship between the Porokhov and Ertrinken accounts, not a confirmation. However, the ptwiki administrators decided to accept the block on "suspicion" that the account belongs to Porokhov. Additionally, the tag they put on the Ertrinken ptwiki page states that it was blocked due to "suspicion." I understand that one should not indefinitely block someone based on suspicion, at the risk of punishing bona fide editors. But it is up to the enwiki administrators to verify whether or not it is fair to adopt such a measure too. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

RodRabelo7 Ertrinken My recommendation to the two editors is that they stop writing on each other's pages. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.WagnerC: Thank you for coming to defend me here as well, but you didn't understand the issue. No one is interested in the Portuguese Wikipedia's paranoia; both RodRabelo7 and I were indefinitely blocked there. What I would like is for this user to stop bothering me, this is a matter regarding specifically English Wikipedia. Ertrinken 01:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think both of you have done something wrong. Thanking someone 10 times in a minute is certainly strange conduct, and proceeding to revert any discussion about it was the incorrect thing to do. Proper discussion would likely have prevented this AN/I thread. On the other hand, Ertrinken did not assume good faith when leaving a talk page message. Calling the thanks harassment is going way too far, and is certainly not in good faith. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• RodRabelo7, if you repeat this thanks-spam behaviour once again, and if we receive another complaint of you going wild with the thanks button, you will be blocked.
• Ertrinken, you can take up their redirects discussions to RfD. In case you believe there is a case for creating disruptive redirects, unarchive this discussion and show example diffs. Alternately, I am closing this discussion with these remarks. Thank you, Lourdes 08:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:CANVASSING and aspersions by Stephan rostie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Stephan rostie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After Stephan rostie was partially blocked from editing the Arabs article (the contentious topics procedure applies to it), they started a non-neutral RfC on the article's talk page, bludgeoned it to death and canvassed two editors with messages that speak for themselves (see Diff and Diff). Your assistance on this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I didn’t know what canvassing is or that it was a thing. I just received that i was under some sort of “investigation” and now i am here.

secondly, user @Largoplazo came to the talk before i even invited him, the invitation in the diff M.Bitton attached was after he already came and commented in the talk, you can check edit histories and dates for that. I sent him the invitation to encourage him to stay and contribute in the talks rather than flying away. For user @Iskandar323 i did invite him to join the talk, i don’t know him nor had any previous talk with him and he seemed to have edits and knowledge about the region so i invited him, so I still don’t get where the problem is. In both cases i sent invitations to attract more users because the article Arabs edits history is almost hijacked by only these three users M.Bitton, skitash, and sara schneiderCH alone (check it’s history). So i wanted to attract third parties unrelated who could give an objective view and judgement about the topic, is that wrong ?

i also want to note that user M.Bitton removed significant amount of sourced content after being WP:EDITCONSENSUS which was even unrelated to the topic of debate.

lastly: After Stephan rostie was partially blocked from editing the Arabs article (the contentious topics procedure applies to it). The contentious topic he is talking about doesn’t allow him to make more than one revert per 24 hours, whereas he did it three times (check the edits history). Not to mention his sarcastic comments in the RfC rather than seriously discussing the topic. Regarding the “contentious topics” I personally thought it was a bug in the website or something tbh because the warning said that the topic was “related to the israeli-arab conflict” while the article was just purely about arabs and nothing about israel or jews, adding to this that it was openly available for everyone to edit and even many anonymous IPs were freely making minor edits. Stephan rostie (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The main thing you are doing wrong here is A) this talk of personalization, and B) casting aspersions on other editors (and thereby, ironically, personalizing it yourself). You are never going to build a consensus with other editors by treating them like the other and engaging in low level personal attacks. This will just get you blocked, per WP:NPA. You need to learn to take a step back if thinks get heated. You can learn by yourself, or learn the hard way, via blocks. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The claim that you canvassed Iskandar323 by pure coincidence doesn't hold much water given that you've shown a great interest in editing the articles that are related to the Arab–Israeli conflict conflict and as such, you are fully aware of their views. M.Bitton (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

They started a less than optimal RFC and pinged a few users. Lots of new editors, and even experienced editors, aren't fantastic at creating their first RFCs. As for the pinging, it was fairly limited and open, but obviously not neutral, so yes, not ideal. However, we must AGF that they were unaware of WP:CANVASS. We know they are aware now. (For me, it was in any case redundant, since I already watch the page.) Overall, as a general principle, I think WP:DBTN broadly applies. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has been canvassed, you are free to assume whatever you want. As far as I'm concerned, WP:DBTN doesn't apply to highly disruptive editors who go around biting other editors, edit warring and casting aspersions. I will take this this opportunity to ping Skitash since their name has been mentioned by the reported editor. M.Bitton (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ignorance of the rules is not a justification for breaking them. Even if they had not read the policy itself, trying to gather editors to support their POV and then bludgeoning in that discussion is obvious misconduct. They have been around for a few months, and have edited exclusively in controversial areas. If they are still not aware of the guidelines, the need to take a break from editing.
Also noting they are currently blocked for edit warring, perhaps that block needs to be extended.

Note - This was open when I wrote the reply, and didnt show an edit conflict. Anyway, reasonable block. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles by User:Abdel hamid67

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello all. This is my first time at ANI, so apologies if I do anything wrong. Abdel hamid67 has been repeatedly creating unreferenced articles (examples are Algeria at the 1987 World Championships in Athletics, Algeria at the 2001 World Championships in Athletics, Algeria at the 1995 World Championships in Athletics, Algeria at the 1987 World Championships in Athletics and more). Concerns over these pages have been repeatedly expressed on their talk page by Sportsfan 1234, Hey man im josh, SunDawn and myself. Tonight, I draftified more of these unreferenced articles and left a final warning on their talk page, following on from the disruptive editing warnings of others in the same scenario (Special:diff/1166192024). Abdel hamid67 then proceeded to move all of these articles back to mainspace, even after the express last warning (see move log). This shows a blatant disregard for our verifiability policy, as well as a failure to listen to the concerns of others. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I looked through Abdel hamid67's contributions and it looks like they have never made a Talk page or User talk page comment. In cases like this, I question their ability to communicate in English or perhaps they only use the mobile interface where it is more difficult to be aware of User talk page messages. I have posted a comment on their User talk page asking them to participate here but I doubt they will come over to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The articles I have dealt with from Abdel hamid67 do have references, but are not sufficient for main space. Which is why I drafted them. Without any improvement, Abdel Hamid67 moved them back! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed this issue through the new pages feed, and I strongly doubt any of these articles are notable. I'll make a mass nomination at AfD. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

They've continued to edit without responding here, so I've blocked them from mainspace for a day. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Is the information in the articles incorrect, or just unreferenced. There's nothing wrong with adding information to an article, and leaving it for others to add references. See the WP:IMPERFECT policy, which only notes the requirement for references for verafibility for BLPs. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  From what I have seen, the information doesn't appear to be incorrect. However, the references cited do not mention anything in the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  That hardly seems sanctionable. Nfitz (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Nfitz There's nothing wrong with adding information to an article, and leaving it for others to add references WP:BURDEN tends to disagree, because adding unreferenced content is in essence asking other people to redo the research oneself (hopefully) has done. I personally think that paragrah of WP:IMPERFECT is more aimed at the 457,336 existing unverifyable as-is because un(der)referenced articles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  BURDEN doesn't opine at all, other than for BLP or organizations. BURDEN is aimed at editing disagreements - not as a standard for inclusion of material. If there's no further evidence, then the user should be unblocked with an apology. Nfitz (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  BURDEN does apply to all unreferenced material that has been challenged, which is certainly true in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 07:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  • That was true for their initial edits; as you said, BURDEN is for after material is challenged, and WP:V likewise says that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material. However, when they moved a draftified article back to mainspace without discussion, they were ignoring those requirements - at that point they weren't just adding unsourced but uncontroversial material, they were ignoring (and trying to override) a challenge to that material. That isn't allowed. That said, since the main issue seems to be communication, I would suggest waiting and seeing if the short block got their attention. --Aquillion (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  So you think adding references that do not cite the information in the article is okay? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

74.101.173.194

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

74.101.173.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has been editing for almost 3 months, mostly making small grammatical, wording and punctuation changes. While some of their edits have been good, the majority are problematic. This includes

• WP:ENGVAR issues: editing articles about British or other non-US topics to change the language and spelling to US English (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7).
• WP:OVERLINK issues: adding wikilinks to well-known country names (1, 2, 3, 4).
• Changing section headings to title case contrary to MOS:SECTIONHEAD (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
• Other miscellaneous issues like changing the spelling of a person's name incorrectly (here), removing necessary footnote letters (here) and breaking formatting (here).

They have been warned about these edits on their talk page by several editors, but have been completely unresponsive, and have continued the behavior that they were warned about. I specifically asked them to respond to verify that they are aware of these warnings but they have not done so. Perhaps a block is needed to get their attention? CodeTalker (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• One month. Bkfip types. Lourdes 04:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the quick response! CodeTalker (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ivyredpixie repeatedly removing content from Ahmed Khan (choreographer) article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Ivyredpixie has repeatedly been removing content from the Ahmed Khan (choreographer) article since July 15, 2023, as seen in the recent history [154]. I have left them a warning, which has gone unheeded, and no response was provided. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do you want to reinstate challenged material about the brother of Ahmed Khan and the brother's estranged wife in an article about the choreographer? You might be antagonising either of the individuals by including material that is irrelevant to a BLP, even if it were true. I would suggest you revert your reinstating this material and let's move on from here. If you don't remove the material yourself, I will. Please action this. Thanks, Lourdes 06:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Himalaya Jet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• KG IT 7143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HJ-977-0044 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Himalaya Jet is being made into the company's about page. I have reverted multiple times, and warned the users. I came back today to see the content reinstated again. Since they don't edit any other topic, and make no effort to modify the unacceptable content before reinstating, I believe enough time and effort has been spent on them. Please block the KG IT account for UPE and/or NOTHERE. If they are to learn a lesson, they can do so from behind the block wall, since they don't stop to learn before reinstating utterly unacceptable content. HJ is also the same user but may not edit again. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have deleted the article and blocked the accounts. Let us know if it is recreated or further spamming comes up. Thanks, Lourdes 06:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:DaleEarnhardt292001

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• DaleEarnhardt292001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has had several advisements of not updating athlete articles before transactions are officially announced. I warned the editor a final time on the 18th after doing it again, to which the editor replied "Whatever give a warning because I'm not gonna stop". It's kind of strange because the edits do appear in good faith, the editor just is openly refusing to the follow the rules in regards to sports transactions.--Rockchalk717 16:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Elinruby and making everything about me

I constantly attacking me, and making the talk page over at Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy about me and my edits (and this seems to be a grudge they have held for a while). Personalizing every dispute.

[[155]]

Even when I have not commented in a thread yet

[[156]]

This has been going on a for a few days

[[157]]

[[158]]

[[159]]

PA's (I am unsure when I supposedly made ABF).

[[160]]

They are also (though to be fair I am kind of guilty of it as well, though with a lot less text) of trying to bludgeon the discussion.

I have asked them to stop making it about me, their response was [[161]] (PA's again, and I have no idea what " defamatory remarks" they are talking about. and a threat to start striking my comments, [[162]], no idea what "false statements" they are talking about. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

And here

[[163]]

[[164]]

Which was closed due to it being cocked up. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Slatersteven keeps injecting himself. He shuts down discussions and and makes nonsensical statements. I don't have time to go through his diffs right now, but I think that a reading of his posts at my talk page and talk page history, and the recent talk page threads at Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy would speak for itself. He was mentioned in a thread he hadn't commented on yet since it was clearly a response to his accusation that I engage in original research. For the record, the article was almost completely uncited when I came to it post-Grabowski, which was apparently fine with Slatersteven, since he'd been reverting people there for years.

So. As the person who added the majority of the sources now in the article, I object to being insulted by Slatersteven, and I also object to his most recent contention that we need to remove the sources (!) that Arbcom (!) objected to (!) as a profound misunderstanding of what Arbcom did, what Arbcom *is* and what that editor was proposing. I said he was beside the point and out of line and I stand by that statement. If he thinks that is an attack I don't know what to tell him. I asked him to strike his assertion about original research, and I don't think that"s an attack either.

For the record, I do not have a grudge against Slatersteven. I do not even consider him an opponent. I see him as an obstacle. A rock in the road. An unresponsive entity that I am required to reason with despite the difficulties involved. If he doesn't want me to mention his name ever, he can stop trying to police content work that he doesn't understand. Shrug. I certainly never think of him when he isn't derailing talk page discussions.

I have previously announced a short wikibreak until the temperature returns to something reasonable, since I intend to spend the next couple of days in a tub of cold water. Given this post I will periodically check for pings, however, in case anyone has any questions. Elinruby (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67, Scope creep, Piotrus, Mathglot, there's something off but I won't write it here off-the-cuff. Given their tenure here, I want to request your comments to clarify this first... Thanks, Lourdes 21:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sigh... unfortunate situation between two highly competent and productive editors. I'll go back into it and study it a bit to see if there's anything productive I can add here, but in the meantime, is there any way we can short-circuit what could end up being a long thread which will distract both editors from productively contributing elsewhere and maybe cause some hurt feelings, with no real resolution at the end? I mean, I have good relations with both of you, and I'd hate to see you two bloody each other here, what a waste. Is there any way you can both just lick your wounds respectively on each side, mutter something under your breath, you take your ball, and you take your bat, and go home?

I will go look into it, but best outcome in my view, is that by the time I get back, you've both somehow managed to end this. Slatersteven, as the originator, I don't want in any way to shut down what you feel strongly enough is a grievance to bring here; what would be necessary and sufficient for you to hear to end this? Elinruby, as the subject of this, can you self-monitor for the words you or Slatersteven in Talk page comments, and if you seem them rendering on the page in preview mode, change them to something else? I *really* don't want to see this escalate. C'mon guys, can we just do this, and leave the nice folks at ANI to remain busy with editors that are hurting the encyclopedia, instead of having to come here and deal with you two, who are doing so much to improve it, and have been for so long? Make my day: end this. Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I took *mine* to dispute resolution as I dunno, it really feels like he thinks he is doing the right thing and I was hoping someone would explain things to him if the problem was a misunderstanding of policy. I did in fact self-monitor, but maybe not well-enough for the word "you". It is very difficult to tell what he is even saying, but he just tried again and so did I, shrug, but in the meantime yet another discussion stalled and became explaining Arbcom to Slatersteven, who as far as I can tell still thinks he is enforcing an Abcom decision (!) that deprecated sources (!) that we failed in some way to comply with (!), and is being that confused in a thread about something else. If anyone can figure out what he is actually on about, like I said the other day to another confused editor, if the sources are good, we'll probably adopt it. If as I suspect he objects to my announced plan to delete the badly-cited Channel Islands section, he could cite it? Otherwise, I dunno. This seems like a time sink to me, and I have no idea what Slatersteven thinks he is doing. Elinruby (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• To be honest, half the time I don't even know what Slatersteven is talking about and I have the discussion on my watchlist and check it regularly. For weeks we've been mulling the definition of collaboration and recently found an article that I was planning to write, which pushed us forward a bit. That is what we have been looking at for weeks, but he seems to be talking policy, arbcom and so on and not really following the gist of the dicussion or trying to contribute. I certainly agree with Mathglot, it would be the ideal. scope_creep^Talk 22:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with Mathglot. They are both productive editors and need to find a way to work together. However, if Elinruby's recent snark to me is to be considered an indication of their behaviour towards editors that don't immediately adopt their views, I think they need to take a break from this topic. After not commenting much at all for some time due to the TLDR posts and personalisation of commentary, I made a neutral comment pointing to sources on the definition of collaboration, and Elinruby's response started with "Cough, I will say again", and followed that with an invitation to "actually work on the page". I have a very thick skin after a decade dealing with POV pushers and abuse on WWII Yugoslavia articles, so I could care less about snark, but this is hardly an approach likely to make anyone feel welcome to contribute. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if I made you feel unwelcome. If I am the impediment to you working on the article, I am happy to put it in your hands, but you have until now shown no desire to do so. I did not however see your remarks as neutral, but as an uncritical acceptance of the idea that the article needs sources, which is nonsense.

What is *there* is well-sourced. The problem with the article as I see now it is that it was written piecemeal one country at a time, and some are vastly better covered than others. Yugoslavia in particular needs help, and you appear to have expertise in this area, as I have mentioned to you before. I have zero emotional involvement with the article, except that I would like it to not be the embarrassment to wikipedia that it was in February. For those who don't realize this, this is one of the articles mocked by Grabowski. It's improved considerably since then, but what I see here is four editors getting stuff done, plus a newbie who might contribute, being lectured about sources for some reason by someone who is completely unaware of the article's current condition, and then a well-meaning suggestion from someone who has the talk page watchlisted. I don't need a break, I need Slatersteven to either work on the article or stop interrupting the people who are working on it. Speaking of people who actually work on the article, we might as well hear from Shakescene, who has done a lot of the architectural work in the article reorganization, and Transylvania1916, the newbie Slatersteven was biting the other day. Elinruby (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I could offer to mediate a bit, if both parties ping me where there is disagreement? I think in the past I worked positively with both editors (more recently, I recall doing so with Elinruby, whom I found civil enough in interactions with me). I'd certainly stress to both parties to mind CIV and AGF, and I find Elinruby's apology above a very good indicator that things can be resolved peacefully, without the need for community sanctions beyond reminders to everyone about CIV/AGF and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I don't actually know. My complaint is that he keeps interrupting talk page discussions about reorganizing the Collaboration in x articles by saying that collaboration is whatever the sources say it is. I have already talked too much here so I'll just say that as well you know this is not helpful. Which sources? Apparently not IPN sources, right? Anyway. since he started this right after I said I was going to delete the badly-sourced Channel Islands section, and said something in one of his pronouncements about not deleting entire sections, I have speculated that the real problem was my proposal to delete some original research there. That *is* speculation though. He didn't grace me with an explanation, just told me he was going to report me for not following the sourcing policy. Since I have put hundreds of hours into soucing that article, I found that ridiculous and much as I am trying to make allowances for Slatersteven, I hear enough of that from the Signpost thank you very much. Figuring out what he is actually upset about would be a start. If it is the Channel Islands, Shakescene has helpfully located some sources, which only need to be added. DUE is another question, but they are in fact a special case that deserves at least a mention, even though there are already two articles that cover this. HTH, good luck, and thanks. Elinruby (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, what I said was we go by what RS say (others have as well, pointing out that user defines inclusion criteria do not trump policies such as OR and V) when deciding content inclusion. Secondly, I has no idea when I objected to the removal of the channel islands, and this may be part of the problem, Elinruby seems to be holding some grudge and will not let go. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think she is holding a grudge against you. I've worked with Elinruby for a couple of years now and I've never had any problem about collaborating on any article. Everybody here seems to be an experienced editor and understands what WP:RS is and what the policy is around using good academic sources. Everybody strives for that. You seem to be repeating the same kind of mesage and its inhibiting the conversation without actually helping or moving the discussion forward. scope_creep^Talk 11:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

This does not explain them accusing me of not allowing any change to the article (which is demonstrably not true, as it has been changed since the last time I edited it). That is what I am objecting to. Nor the fact that others felt the need to also point out that a talk page consensus does not override policy. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

sigh. In the most recent exchange I said you derail discussions. You do. Since apparently you insist on pursuing this well diffs it is:

• SL article contributions consist almost entirely reverts

recent newbie biting:12>

From May 2020 to February 2023 SL did not edit the talk page then surfaced to lecture me about RS. More cognitive dissonance here: Request to provide page numbers called uncivil

as for the sources: yrs Grabowski was correct, aticle was awful. At the time if I had edited the article at all in would have been sole to the France section. Peacemaker67 also parachued in the explain what is TS, perhaps believing that the wditors there at the time were those responsible. However PM was talking to Smallchief, another longstanding editor who has definitely heard of RS: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1140320315&oldid=1140319064&title=Talk:Collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany_and_Fascist_Italy He noted that the article was mostly uncited. SL doubled down talking about COI also for some reason

Since February Slatersteven has

• objected to tagging to n the channel islands section
• objected to including British United Fascists. Rationale:we can't include everything
• Insisted on not called themthe BritshChannel Islands now that sources existfor collaboration

• shut down another user on the subject of defining collaboration
• weighed in against improving the article
• shuts down RS question he apparently misunderstood

Fwiw I don't hold grudges.Ii am not asking fir CiR or even a trouting. I just want him to try to understand discussions before he tells editors they should't be discussing. I still don't understand why he thought Scope creep was talking about Arbcom. Scope creep didn't mention Arbcom, Arbcom accepted my rewrite of the lede in evidence without comment and specifically without reproof, warning or sanction. That said, the two sources I left in from the old lede are in fact old, alrhough I am under the impression that they are not just RS but reputed thinkers. The source with a quote, which I added because it seemed like a good summary, may or not be well-cited. I support Scope creep rewiting the definition and updating the sourcing. What we were discussing when interrupted was.whether there was consensus to expand on the definition(s) in what should probably be a parent article, even though it is currently much smaller.

But here we are. Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• My thoughts after skimming the articles talk page: Of the last 500 edits on that talk page, 223 of them (~44%) were by Elinruby. That's a lot! For comparison, Slatersteven has 39 of those 500 edits. Additionally, Elinruby's comments tended to be proposing fairly significant changes to the article, while Slatersteven's tended to be brief objections along the lines of "we need to follow [policy X]", usually related to reflecting what the sources say; and his objections are at least at a glance not groundless. I can understand how that can be frustrating, but overall this gives me the impression that Elinruby may have WP:OWN and possibly WP:BLUDGEON issues with the page. There's nothing wrong with being very active about proposing stuff, but once you've put an idea about how to improve stuff on the table it's sometimes best to let other people discuss it a bit and, if there's a clear locus of disagreement or discussion seems to be dying down without an obvious consensus, to post a note on an appropriate messageboard or start an RFC or some other dispute-resolution mechanism to call in additional voices so it isn't just one or two people talking. I do want to also point out the somewhat amusing statement Elinruby made above that Slatersteven keeps injecting himself - for someone who has dominated conversations on that talk page so much to say that an editor who has made just 39 of the past 500 edits "keeps injecting himself" strikes me as somewhat WP:OWNy thinking. When you post a lot of suggestions on a talk page, people are supposed to post any objections they have, that's how a talk page works - the solution is to focus on building a consensus, not to focus on Slatersteven. --Aquillion (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  there is a difference. I have reiterated proposals multiple times, often originally made by others, which seem to have consensus scattered across the sections, in hopes of getting a critical mass of editors to agree in a given section that can be pointed to. The many talk page posts actually stem from a concern for consensus.

  What *I* am complaining of is for example: in a.discusdion of adopting Wartime collaboration as a parent article -- which will require significant reorganization of material but seems like the thing to do and apparently does have consensus -- Slatersteven interjects that we have to get rid of the sources Arbcom said not to use. Superficially, yes, this is based on policy, Then he complains when I say I don't know what he is talking about and want to delete unsourced material he has previously defended but never cited. I'll add a couple of convenience links later. Meanwhile, if people think I have wanted to OWN the article vs. other editors not wanting to work on it lest they too get drawn into the Arbcom case, I am happy to let the article talk page proceed on its own without me for a while. An editor we hadn't heard from in a while just came. back and has made some good suggestions, and Slatersteven is speaking in complete sentences on topic today.

  I am not sure what the other editors who were working on this article with me think of all this, but I am working on other articles with each of the three of them, and guess will go build out Gallo-Roman ruins and the civil law legal system for a while, shrug, if people here think I am a problem there. I doubt it, but the article is going to take a long time and a lot of work to fix no matter what, and I do have other stuff to do. Elinruby (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  That not what happened another use suggested deletion whole section on the grounds that some of it fell foul of an arb com ruling, I said "no if that is the issue only remove the stuff that falls foul. Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Really? On the article talk page somebody said this? Diffs or it didn't happen. Possibly just maybe are you tall ng about this???: What does this mean? You're the one making the complaint here. I shouldn't have to guess what it is. Also, are you aware that due to Section 230 Arbcom religiously avoids pronouncing on the reliability of sources????

If that's not what we are talking about, then I am back to not understanding what the problem is that you are trying to solve. Please make your point about Arbcom. Elinruby (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

[[165]] "but I suggest we just delete that section, which repeats some of the PoV pushing the Arbcom case was about, ie "there wasn't much collaboration in Poland"." my response [[166]], you responded [[167]]. Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

SPAs and IPs used for political purposes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Dirceu Mag (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
• D Pinto M (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
• 92.40.205.16 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
• 92.40.204.204 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
• 92.40.205.221 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
• 92.40.204.103 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
• 92.40.204.172 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Account clearly created for private use, used to modify information about the 2023 Ecuadorian general election. Since the main account was blocked, the user created a new SPA to continue the sabotage, in addition to the use of various IPs [168][169][170][171]. Absurdly, an administrator advocated for the unlocking, and it was granted, to continue his sabotage of said page, even asking other users for help to carry out his task, trying to justify his actions. [172][173][174][175]. The problem has been dragged to the Spanish Wikipedia, where, luckily, the administrators have been less permissive. Truly an absurd case of permissiveness, which should have been resolved, instead of delaying it further, allowing impunity for this user. -- David C. S. (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Erfan2017 engaging in intentional misrepresentation of a source on a supposed 'cancer cure' through cherry-picking

Erfan2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Essiac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few days ago, Erfan2017 made an edit to Essiac, an article on a herbal tea promoted as a supposed 'alternative treatment for cancer'. [176] It took only the briefest inspection of the source cited to determine that the source had been cherry-picked in an entirely inappropriate manner, in order to misrepresent what the source the NIH had to say on the subject. Accordingly, I reverted the edit, advising the contributor to read WP:MEDRS, along with WP:COPYPASTE, since the text in question was almost word-for-word from the source cited. Erfan2017 responded to this by starting a conversation with me on my talk page (User Talk:AndyTheGrump#Essiac) where I attempted to explain the issues with the edit, to again advise reading WP:MEDRS, and to make it entirely clear that it was in no manner remotely acceptable to pick an isolated phrase from a source - "Laboratory and animal experiments have shown that some of the chemicals in the herbs used to make Essiac and Flor Essence have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, estrogenic, or anticancer activity." - to imply that the NIH might support the use of the substance, when the same paragraph ends with a statement - "Whether equivalent concentrations of relevant molecules can be achieved in the bloodstream of individuals who consume Essiac or Flor Essence in the amounts recommended by their manufacturers has not been determined. An uncharacterized Flor Essence commercial product was dosed at amounts lower than those recommended by the manufacturers for humans, and there was an increase in tumor incidence in this model") - that makes it abundantly clear that the opposite is true. After some too-and-fro discussion I though I had succeeded in making Wikipedia policy clear, and advised Erfan2017 that if any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources could be found which supported amending the article, they should start a discussion on the article talk page, providing full citations and a proposed text.

Sadly though, rather that do as I suggested, Erfan2017 instead elected to post a statement on my talk page basically saying they were going to ignore my advice, and shortly after, before I had a chance to respond, restored the disputed material to the article. [177] Given this knowing, intentional, and deliberate misrepresentation of the source concerned it seems entirely clear that Erfan2017 needs to be sanctioned - at minimum to be blocked from editing the article, though there may well be grounds for suggesting that more is needed. In my opinion (and that of a great many other contributors, I suspect) there are few things more harmful to the project than such wilful misuse of sources, as a breach of trust entirely incompatible with Wikipedia ethos. Even more so when involving purported 'cancer cures' with documented harmful effects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, User AndyTheGrump removed a scientifically well-referenced fact from the article. The added text consisted of 29 words, taken directly from a highly reliable and relevant source. Although there was a concern about copy and paste, the issue was resolved by rephrasing the content.

Secondly, User AndyTheGrump appears to be avoiding constructive discussion and imposing their own views. Despite being reminded twice about the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), they continue to assert their ideas and direct the discussion to the talk page of the article.

Thirdly, upon rephrasing the content and including it in the article, the user escalated the matter to the notice board, seeking sanctions against me. I find it perplexing that we hold different views on the article's neutrality, where I believe it lacks balance in presenting information about the herbal substance, while the user disagrees. Therefore, I also request for the sanction of the User AndyTheGrump who insists on unbalanced article.

The current article fails to cover all aspects of Essiac, as evidenced by various studies, including those supporting the positive effects of Essiac tea (e.g., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16274521/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11365626/). There are numerous other references I can provide if needed.

It is disheartening to observe an experienced Wikipedia editor who seems unwilling to engage in constructive discussions and appears to restrict others' editing abilities. Open dialogue and collaboration are essential for creating a balanced and informative article. Erfan2017 (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Erfan, I think Andy could have been a little bit more constructive and collaborative in the tone of his responses to you, but in the essential, brass tacks details of how to apply the relevant policies, I must tell you that he is essentially completely correct and you are quite mistaken about those policies, insofar as how they read and how community consensus tells us to apply them.

First off, Andy was completely entitled to revert you, RS or no RS, if he felt in good faith that your edit added factual inaccuracies (see WP:BRD). Once reverted, the WP:ONUS fell upon you to get WP:CONSENSUS that the claim was WP:verifiable and appropriate for inclusion. You should have taken the matter to the article talk page and tried to work past the editorial impasse, and then (after a reasonable effort to persuade Andy and any others there, or work out a compromise version), if you failed to gain support, you could have availed yourself of a community process (such as WP:RfC) to get further eyes on the issue. Instead, it seems you are WP:edit warring over the matter, which in the long run will not get the content into the article, I assure you.

Getting to the substantive content issues, I also agree with Andy that you have an inaccurate understanding of what "neutral point of view" means on this project. It does not mean that we try to give every argument it's fair shake and be minimally welcoming to every assertion or every subject--herbal supplements most assuredly included. Rather it means we shape our content based on the WP:WEIGHT ascribed to them in the corpus of overall sources for a subject. (See also WP:FALSEBALANCE). Some claims with very weak support may not be discussed at all, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require an exceptional threshold of support in sources, and there are special considerations when it comes biomedical and scientific topics and to areas which are prone to promotional spin and misinformation (see WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE).

I note that almost all of the above policy considerations were supplied to you by Andy (if somewhat...well, grumpily) and you don't seem to have engaged with those points really at all, which is beginning to look like WP:IDHT. I suggest your best course of action here is to go back to the article talk page and discuss this matter in more detail. I will tell you frankly that I don't think you are going to prevail on the merits of your argument here, but you will at least come out the other side with a better understanding of our editorial guidelines, which (assuming you are WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia and not to promote a particular product) will be a useful experience anyway. Or you can just drop the matter: your call. What you can't do is try to edit war your preferred version into the article.

And no, I think I can say with some certainty that Andy is not going to get sanctioned here. His response to you was a little on the acerbic-toned side, but also well, well below anything disruptive or otherwise sanctionable. In fact, I will go farther and say I am glad he had his eyes on this situation. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure we're at sanction territory yet, but I've followed up on the involved discussions and can confirm that ATG's summary of events is essentially accurate: Erfan does seem to have a confused understanding of what NPOV involves (i.e. the seem to think we should present all competing positive and negative narratives, rather than presenting perspectives consistent with their relative WP:WEIGHT in RS), and could benefit from looking at WP:FALSEBALANCE in particular (which Andy has already directed them to. Their somewhat single-minded drive and idiosyncratic perspectives on what should be presented in such cases suggests to me that they are either be a big proponent of herbal supplements as alternative medicine, or quite possibly someone who has a more direct COI with this product. Regardless, they don't seem to be hearing what Andy is laying down.

To be fair, some of that might be due to Andy's delivery, honestly: this user did approach Andy with a highly polite attitude and saying that they are looking to contribute within Wikipedia's guidelines, and Andy's responses have been a little on the curt side from the beginning--and shortly into the back and forth Andy was making outright claims of operating in bad faith. I do understand Andy's frustration with Erfan's slowly building IDHT, as well as Andy's concerns about the particular area of misinformation. But I would remind Andy that it is a lot easier for community members in this space to endorse a stronger sanction earlier when a new user is given a more constructive / "let's work through this shall we?" response, rather than meeting a very surly wall as soon as they attempt to navigate our (afterall, somewhat complicated and sometimes even obtuse) sourcing guidelines.

That said, it's also possible Andy is accurately calling a spade for a spade. I don't think a block (even a page block) can be justified on the conduct displayed by Erfan so far. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't have my suspicion's that this could end up in a WP:NOTHERE indef eventually, based on what seem to the Erfan's priorities. But we just can't sanction on suspicions alone. I recommend reverting the edit based on the NIH source in the meantime (per WP:BRD), taking the matter to the article talk page, and leaving a notice at WP:FTN. If Erfan continues to edit war to get this content in without establishing such a consensus, then I think a block would be fully justified. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your time and considerate response, "Snow Rise." I have learned how to argue and where to look to become a better editor. Moving forward, I will take any further discussions to the talk page if I have any. Regarding the Essiac article, I must clarify that I'm not sure how I ended up on it initially, but upon a quick glance, I noticed that the article seems to portray Essiac in a completely negative light. However, I have come across scientific articles supporting Essiac's positive impact and even case studies in medical journals reporting remission, such as "Spontaneous regression in advanced non-small cell lung cancer" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3029413/).

I felt it was unfair for Wikipedia to present only one side of the story, so I added just two lines (29 words) to the article, which currently has about 600 words. My intention was to provide a more balanced perspective. Nevertheless, if the Wikipedia community of experts believes that the current version is accurate and comprehensive enough, I won't pursue the matter any further. Erfan2017 (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

When accused of cherry-picking sources, it is generally unwise to provide further evidence of the same. The article you cite allegedly 'supporting Essiac's positive impact' does nothing of the sort, and to the contrary states that multiple scientific investigations have yet to yield any evidence for the supposed effects being claimed.AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I want to express my gratitude to you, Andy, for your time, and I apologize for any misunderstandings that may have occurred during our discussion. Speaking generally about the issue of cherry-picking, as you pointed out, when condensing a substantial amount of information into a single Wikipedia article, the selection of the most relevant facts is crucial to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the person, event, medication, or any other subject.

However, it's essential to recognize that the concept of "cherry-picking" is subjective since what one person considers important may differ from another's perspective. As editors, we may gather and select certain facts that we believe are the most relevant, but someone else may choose different ones, resulting in different interpretations of the subject matter. This subjectivity can lead to accusations of cherry-picking between editors who have different viewpoints on what information should be included in an article. This becomes a matter of expertise in the subject matter and the level of scientific knowledge and writing skills, which can determine which approach provides a more comprehensive article and covers all aspects thoroughly. Erfan2017 (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate with you here. If you really can't understand why you cannot selectively quote from a source in order to imply that it supports the use of a supposed 'anti-cancer' product it expressly states has been shown to increase tumor incidence in a test, you shouldn't be editing article on such topics at all. This doesn't require scientific expertise, it requires nothing beyond basic comprehension skills, and the ability to honestly reflect what sources actually say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Erfan--you're most welcome: it's good to hear that your motive for editing the article is good faith and incidental. Unfortunately, medical topics and alternative medicine just happens to be an area that combines a lot of somewhat complicated and nuanced policy provisions with regard to sourcing, so you just kind of stepped in to a difficult area to cut your teeth on. If you think it's better to leave that particular issue/article be for the time being, that's probably not the worst idea in the world (at least until you're a little more well versed in those policies).

That said, if you happen to have questions as you are digesting these policies, you'll find that people are generally very indulgent of questions on the relevant talk pages for the article you are working on (although some have much slower activity than others), or the talk page for the policy you are trying to understand. There's also the WP:Teahouse and WP:HelpDesk, which field questions, and the WP:Reference Desk for help in finding new sources. And since I do a fair bit of editing in the MEDRS space (or at least have, historically), I'll extend to you a personal invitation to drop by my talk page if you are trying to parse a sourcing issue on medical/scientific topics in the future. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind offer. I would be delighted to engage in further discussions with you. Erfan2017 (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Any time--you know where to find me! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Sassette Smuftling (Urgent)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Spamming talkpages about smurfs w/o corresponding articles, templates and now categories. Mostly gibberish. Serious WP:CIR issues. Cleanup needed. Please block ASAP. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Given speed and (extremly poor/raw html) formatting, likely some kind of bot. Kleuske (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP talk page violations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Someone might wanna take a look at Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:AA1D:4A01:0:0:0:0/64's WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NPA violations (e.g. [178] and [179]). 93.72.49.123 (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Might warrant sanctions, Ill leave that to others, but does seems like an WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE issue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dimaseateffects

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not sure what their agenda is, but a new user, Dimaseateffects, is creating, blanking, requesting speedies, etc. on various articles, and generally causing havoc, despite warnings. If indef isn't warranted, perhaps at least a short block could help get their attention? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steven Walling

This admin made accusations of bad faith and when called on it here and here, doubled and tripled and quadrupled down, finally refusing to discuss further. Just completely doesn’t see that commenting on another editor’s motivations is not okay.

This is not just an admin but a former WMF staffer, and I just think someone with this level of experience and influence should be recognizing they need to AGF and be willing to do some self reflection when someone calls them on their behavior. I’m also concerned that they really just don’t see what they said as an accusation of bad faith. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The fifth and sixth diffs are the same ("tripled and quadrupled").—Alalch E. 13:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Was about to comment that. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

DOH. Thanks, if I've just screwed it up worse, LMK! Valereee (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbcom-levels of good faith, to be exact  :) SN54129 13:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Valeree, you are fundamentally confusing "assume good faith" with "don't ever say anything about someone's intentions and actions". The very first line of the policy is "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia". I have said that the proposal BilledMammal is making is against policy and that they have a pattern of trying to delete stubs. It is not an assumption of bad faith to say that someone wants to delete articles, and others in the discussion also commented that there is such a pattern. Many people, including myself given that I've nominated things for CSD and AFD, think that deleting articles can protect and improve Wikipedia when done so in accordance with content policy. I even directly said in the thread "I am sure they think they are trying to improve Wikipedia". You are not understanding my point at all. Steven Walling • talk 15:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You literally said, BilledMammal is doing this because they know that mass AFDs would never pass, but they can pretend each draft will get considered before being eventually deleted. [Emphasis yours.] You accused them of pretending something false was true in order to achieve their own hidden goals. That is ABF. Valereee (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @BilledMammal since I've now mentioned them. Valereee (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You insinuated in the diff labeled "doubled" above that there was obvious evidence that BilledMammal was not acting in good faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I am going to be slow to respond the rest of today because I am at work (not at WMF, where I haven't worked for almost a decade) but suffice it to say I do not agree. Accusing someone of trying to delete articles is not like saying they are a sockpuppet or a vandal trying to harm Wikipedia. Steven Walling • talk 16:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Take your time. Valereee (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

When someone asked you to strike your statement, you quoted a line from AGF that said that you don't have to assume good faith if there's obvious evidence they're acting in bad faith. Why did you quote this specific line? What relevance does this line have to BilledMammal? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

To add to the question above, do you have a diff where BilledMammal makes it obvious this is their intent? --ARoseWolf 18:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

As tempting as it is to reply with more, I'm going to resist the temptation to beat a dead horse. Steven Walling • talk 20:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

So only a few hours ago, it was that a response may be slow in coming due to work priorities, but now you're ducking out entirely? Seems like a willful WP:ADMINACCT violation. ValarianB (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh? I came back and replied when I had a break. In terms of an overall reply, please see what I said below. Steven Walling • talk 20:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think Steven's level of responsiveness is more than adequate: the discussion only just opened, his claim that he is working is entirely feasible, and I see no evidence that he is trying to frustrate or delay process. Indeed, given the borderline nature of the ABF comments this report is based upon, I would say that his concession below that "if folks don't like the tone I appreciate the feedback and will take that under sincere consideration in future discussions. is about as good as we can expect in the circumstances, and we should probably close this before hyper-analysis leads to an erosion of what limited agreement which has been reached here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Steven's comments are substantially correct. I would say that:

1. BilledMammal is acting in good faith and trying to improve the encyclopedia.
2. I would tentatively agree with his tactical choice of going the mass-draftification route rather than individual AfDs, and I think it is probably a better way of determining the consensus of the whole community in this case, even if it's not the way we normally do things.
3. Most people in the mass-draftification discussion are pretending to some extent, whether they're arguing that the drafts will be carefully scrutinized (they won't be) or whether they would be improved if we just let them aestivate in mainspace for a decade (they won't be).
4. I don't think statements like the above assume bad faith to such a degree that we need to tone-police them when they don't occur in a broader context of problematic behavior. Choess (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It's actually fine to believe someone is pretending something. What it's not okay to do is accuse them of pretending something false is true in order to achieve their own goals, and then when the not-okayness of that is pointed out, to double down repeatedly, not provide any diffs supporting the accusation, and refuse to continue to discuss. We're here because SW refused, multiple times, a simple request to strike a sentence. Valereee (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

(Well, to be fair, we're also here because you decided it was important enough to start an ANI thread about it. It isn't like SW forced you to do this.) I think Choess has pretty wisely and succinctly summarized the situation, including the opinion that - while imperfect - SW's comment in isolation doesn't rise to the level of reviewing it here. Something can be bad without being ANI-worthy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Floq, fair enough: if it hadn't been an admin doubling down multiple times on ABF over a request to strike a sentence, we wouldn't be here. To be clear: my greater concern is that an admin thinks this is not just okay but absolutely okay and does not even see the problem. I tried multiple times to handle it at the discussion, and they called an end to the discussion. Valereee (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Whilst I don't agree with Steven (I'm pretty sure somewhere in this clusterfuck of a discussion I opined in favour of draftification) I don't think it rises to that level either. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

This is an admin who doesn't see that accusing someone without evidence of bad faith is a problem. It wouldn't be at ANI if I could still be discussing it there. Valereee (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course SW's comments aren't made in isolation; it's not like WP:LUGSTUBS2 was the first time. In WP:LUGSTUBS, in his second comment, Steven accused BM of "bad faith." Before that, in WP:FR2022RFC, he said BM "wants to start a holy war." Those are just the ones I remember, I don't know if there are others. Steven's comments are ad hominem; instead of discussing the RFC proposal, he attacks the RFC proposer. I think we can all agree that Steven's comments are not cool. Steven needs to hear that from everyone, so that he knows to adjust his behavior. So, everybody say it with me now:

Not cool.

If, instead of telling Steven "not cool," we tell Val not to bring this to ANI, Steven will continue making comments like this, and nobody will take it to ANI. The strategy of "say nothing until it becomes sanctionable" is a really poor strategy. So, say something, say it now, say it to the person who is doing something that we don't want them to do, and then the problem might be solved and it might never rise to sanctionable behavior. Win-win. Levivich (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Not cool. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich, and I appreciate Valereee's efforts to address the issue. When other editors see discussions in which remarks like Steven Walling's are made and nobody pushing back, they learn that approach is condoned and feel emboldened to behave likewise. Schazjmd (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The diffs of Steven's comments are here: [180] [181]. I am not sure that they support the explicit and implicit construction Levivich has put on them, but I obviously don't see eye to eye with others here, so editors can make up there own minds. Choess (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Why was this wording needed at all? "Every year some group of editors wants to start a holy war over the wording or style of the banners."(emphasis mine) Steven couldn't get his point across without this degree of ABF? I think Levivich is spot on in that, at the very least, SW has displayed extremely poor judgement in the wording he has used. We've all been there. The answer is not to double down on your approach when faced with it. The fact is he assumed bad faith. He said that he did. He just claimed a Wikipeida policy gave him the okay to do so but hasn't provided a single diff that expressly shows BilledMammal obviously intended bad faith. His BF position is one you even disagree with in your initial comment above (#1). If BilledMammal did not obviously intend bad faith then SW has no policy which to stand upon in order to not assume the good faith of a fellow editor. Whether or not anything actionable occurred, I do believe a strong reminder that we don't do this and that SW needs to take a little more time to choose their words wisely is in order. I think that was Levivich's attempt above. Also, Not cool. --ARoseWolf 18:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Decidedly not cool. The definition of "bad faith" is NOT "making edits/taking stances of which I disapprove." Ravenswing 18:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

As you might guess, I feel very strongly about the possibility of deleting or draftifying a mass number of Wikipedia articles. Removing hundreds or thousands of articles at once is a very serious thing given how sweeping a precedent it creates. That said, if folks don't like the tone I appreciate the feedback and will take that under sincere consideration in future discussions. Steven Walling • talk 19:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Not cool. Levivich is right - as hominem comments in discussions of that nature are really unhelpful, and unbecoming of an admin. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• "Not cool" warning (and we might consider making this a regular piece of ANI diction: feels like it fills a role). I think various community members have already very capably summarized the relevant factors of this dispute above: yes the immediate conduct in question is an example of ABF, despite Steven's protestations to the contrary; no, I can't imagine that I (or most community members) would have escalated response to this exchange to an ANI filing--these are pretty tepid examples of tonal issues, all things considered; on the other hand, we are (understandably) inclined to hold admins to a particular standard for deescalatory (rather than needlessly accusatory) approaches to such such situations, and examples have been supplied here to suggest that the choice to do the opposite may be a little bit of a pattern for Steven (hard emphasis on 'may' there, given the amount of evidence supplied).

I also think Choess' summary is particularly apt: I don't think that the process that BM chose to employ here is all that disruptive or that it is likely to convey an unfair advantage or process-dodging result. If anything, discussions taking place at the pump are likely to get broader scrutiny. That may result in less eyes on the particulars of this or that article, but probably results in substantially similar (or even more) oversight and feedback on the whole. Regardless, it's clearly taking place under numerous community eyes, the presumable majority of whom are actually approaching the issues fresh and with less built-in bias. I have noticed that BilledMammal does tend to be a little WP:BOLD in policy spaces of late, and does approach some procedural and policy issues in a rather idiosyncratic fashion. But this instance does not strike me as particularly problematic, and I certainly don't think there is cause for assuming the chosen approach to be an intentional effort to subvert community expectations. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Reporting user TheMNLRockstar

I'd like to report user TheMNLRockstar which is/are indeed user Raymarcbadz. They have created a new count (TheMNLRockstar) just 2 days after having erasing the section in talk in their talk page on Raymarcbadz. They are doing exactly the same kind of edits that user Raymarcbadz did. I recall you that user Raymarcbadz is banned from doing any edits on Olympics subjects and they are doing a lot of edits since 4 July on Olympics Subjects. I think that the administrators must show to TheMNLRockstar or Raymarcbadz that when the user is banned from editing on certain subjects, they are banned ! 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

User TheMNLRockstar is deleting all my remarks without explaining them. I think the masks have fallen. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I think an investigation would be welcome regarding the strong similarities between users Raymarcbadz and TheMNLRockstar. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Who are you and how sure are you? And why did you file any charges against me? Could you please stop accusing me as someone who banned from Wikipedia? TheMNLRockstar (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You have created your new account 2 days after last edit from Raymarcbadz. I read your talk page before you have erased it and you said that you can't live without making edits on Olympics subjects because you editted in during 17 years. I found it really strange that the exact same edits that Raymarcbadz did you too also did exact the same kind of edits. You have the exact same kind of vocabulary and you do the exact same edits on the same subjects. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

They have been checkuser blocked by User:Girth Summit. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ! It is important to stay vigilant with these users using Sockpuppetry ! 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

And apparently you come from the same geographical area. That's too big to be "just a coincidence". User Raymarcbadz is banned from editting Olympic Subjects, you should too considering that you are the same person. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz is not banned from just Olympic topics, they are outright banned from Wikipedia. Any sock is block and revert on sight. Canterbury Tail talk 13:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's undeniably the same person. We don't have a category stronger than  Confirmed, but this if we did this would be {{super-duper-confirmed}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Girth Summit for your quick response. I will stay vigilant because I am 80% sure they will create another one... 82.120.136.18 (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I see. I saw that they were deleting edits made by other editors on Olympics subjects exactly like was doing Raymarcbadz. I hope they will be reasonable in the future and stop their destructive behaviour. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Girth Summit: I found this (Redacted). We were right: it is completely the same person ! 82.120.136.18 (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

IP editor - I wasn't in any doubt. Please don't post things like that here - it's WP:OUTING. The user may be blocked, but we need to respect their privacy. I've asked the oversight team to suppress your edit. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

OK right, but in this comment they say that they will do the same thing again and again, I think it's worth noticing it... 82.120.136.18 (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Noticing, perhaps, but not posting here. Evidence like that can be submitted through other channels, such as IRC or email, but not posted onwiki. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the redacted information is still posted on WT:OLYMPICS. Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Reporting user Pisarz12345

• Pisarz12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello to Admin. Please note that both users User:Александр Васильев and myself, User:ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888, are hereby requesting your assistance or intervention, in regards to a series of apparently bad faith edits by a certain user, User:Pisarz12345, on various articles from the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar (= calendar day articles). The edits of a certain user, User:Pisarz12345 are in bad faith, in our view, and are contravening Wikipedia's three-revert rule (edit warring).

In summary, user Pisarz12345 is adding persons to the lists of articles of Eastern Orthodox Saints, who are NOT officially venerated by ANY of the Orthodox Churches. An example of this is the article July 3 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics), where Pisarz12345 has blatantly transgressed this three-revert rule; another example like this is article April 19 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics). Both User:Александр Васильев and and myself User:ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888, have repeatedly asked User:Pisarz12345 to not add un-venerated persons to the calendar articles that list venerated Eastern Orthodox Saints. Rather, inclusion of a person on these calendar day articles, means that such a person is VENERATED by one of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in the world,according to their own listings; and so, in the absence of a valid footnote or reference, from a valid Orthodox Church source, then any person may NOT be included in these articles; however, User:Pisarz12345 is blatantly doing so, and participating in edit wars on this point.

Now, some of the references/footnotes that User:Pisarz12345 had provided, are from a Russian Orthodox encylopedia, called DREVO, which is indeed an acceptable, and a pre-moderated, good encylopaedic source - HOWEVER, only in the instance of venerated (or canonized) Saints or Martyrs; obviously this DREVO encyclopaedic source, being an encylopaedia, will also include several other articles on various historical personages who are NOT officially venerated by any Orthodox Church; and so, such persons, cannot therefore be automatically included in the list of Saints for the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar; yet Pisarz12345 is engaging in continuous edit wars and adding such unvenerated persons. The titles of ALL of these 366 Wikipedia calendar-day articles, includes the term "Eastern Orthodox", and so this principle of canonization or official veneration in a valid Eastern Orthodox Church, is paramount here.
Please note also, that User:Pisarz12345 has already been BLOCKED INDEFINITELY on the POLISH WIKIPEDIA (see here).
Your assistance in this matter would be appreciated. Sincerely, ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Other commemorations paragraph is for not canonized but venerated persons, like: Hieromonk Arsenius of Valaam Monastery (1853), Schemamonk Theodore of Svir (1822) or orthers. Secondly Potitus of Gargara you are insinuating is not venerated is in the official menologium of ROC, like Patricius of Vladimir but you are too lazy to check the sources I linked. Pisarz12345 (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Having looked into this, I'm going to note for the record that there has been no effort to discuss these issues on the talk page for either article, and that the edit warring is definitely two-way here: [182], [183]. Furthermore, the edit summaries for Александр Васильев are in Russian, which is clearly an issue that needs addressing. Actually, I get the feeling that all three at least two of the editors involved here have somewhat borderline competency for contributing in English and all three a limited understanding of local policy and procedure. There's also some pretty direct labeling of Pisarz's edits as "bad faith" in ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ's edit summaries, which obviously is a WP:AGF concern, insofar as these edits are not vandalism but merely constitute constitute content that ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ doesn't agree with. (Incidentally, the two editors with cyrillic script names may want to read WP:LATINPLEASE).

The edit warring should of course stop immediately and the issues taken to the article talk pages. But even then, I'm doubtful that there is going to be a meeting of the minds here, based on the previous edit warring, the distance between these editors in perspective, the religious element of the dispute, and the fact that the discussion would need to take place in English. Even mediating the matter would take a lot of hand-holding over some relatively minor changes to the articles (mileage may vary on that last part of the analysis about the importance of the edits, of course).

Honestly I'm not sure what would be the recommended course of action here. Can anyone think of a WikiProject where editors with the requisite interest might be willing to weigh in and help break the deadlock here? I can't imagine these issues are of sufficient interest to the average editor to attract much outside attention, and I don't think these three are going to be able to make proper use of RfC. WP:DRN maybe? Robert McClenon, would this be a good candidate for your assistance, or do you think the obstacles here would be a problem for your process? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this dispute, but DRN has never worked well for editors whose English is marginal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that might be a concern. To be perfectly fair to these parties, I am basing my interpretation of their English skills on limited information, but given the wording of the post above for one of the two users, and the fact that the third is providing edit summaries in another language, I think it's fair to say there is room for miscommunication if the issue was being mediated in English and considering the parties are already strongly rhetorically opposed. I honestly don't know that there is a a feasible middle ground to explore between the two sides here. I guess the best option is to find the closest (probably religion-based) WikiProject to direct them to make an inquiry at. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring on over 80 golf articles

List of the 87 pages affected

• 1999 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 1999 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 1999 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 1999 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2000 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2000 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2000 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2000 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2001 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2001 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2001 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2001 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2002 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2002 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2002 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2002 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2003 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2003 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2003 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2003 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2004 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2004 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2004 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2004 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2005 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2005 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2005 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2005 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2006 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2006 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2006 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2006 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2007 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2007 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2007 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2007 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2008 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2008 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2008 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2008 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2009 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2009 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2009 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2009 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2010 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2010 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2010 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2010 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2011 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2011 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2011 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2011 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2012 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2012 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2012 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2012 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2013 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2013 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2013 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2013 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2014 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2014 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2014 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2014 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2015 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2015 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2015 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2015 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2016 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2016 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2016 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2016 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2017 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2017 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2017 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2017 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2018 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2018 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2018 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2018 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2019 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2019 Open Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2019 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2019 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2020 Masters Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2020 PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2020 U.S. Open (golf) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some time ago Wikiproject Golf reached a consensus that "Past champions in the field" and "Nationalities in the field" sections should be removed from tournament articles (see discussion here, here, here, and here). That consensus was reached 3–4 years ago, but it wasn't until earlier this year that someone put in the work to actually remove all of them. Today User:Jamahiriya has been re-adding them, saying that no consensus was reached.

I posted a message on Jamahiriya's talk page letting them know of the Wikiproject consensus. They replied that the consensus was invalid since it didn't occur on article talk pages. It is true that it didn't, partially because of the number of pages involved, but almost all of the most active golf editors were involved in the discussion.

I opened a new discussion at WT:GOLF regarding whether consensus needed to be re-established, tagging the above user. User:Wjemather replied that it did not, and began to revert Jamahiriya's changes. This led to an edit war between the two, with edits on over 80 pages being undone and redone and both users reaching the maximum of three reverts on some of those pages. Early on, Wjemather posted a warning on Jamahiriya's talk page, and eventually Jamahiriya posted a warning on Wjemather's talk page as well; both have been removed. Both have accused the other of disruption, with Jamahiriya also accusing Wjemather of tendentious editing and violating 3RR in addition to accusations of canvassing, forum-shopping, and meatpuppetry apparently directed at me for re-opening discussion on the Wikiproject talk page. (Wjemather has also mentioned that Jamahiriya's reverts have re-introduced errors and removed citations.)

Several hours ago Wjemather gave up trying to revert Jamahiriya's edits. So far only three users have really been involved in the dispute, and I've just made talk-page comments and no article edits. I'm unsure what the best way forward is, but I've laid out the details to the best of my knowledge. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Jamahiriya is unquestionably edit warring and I've p-blocked them from mainspace for 48 hours. They're welcome to continue discussing here or at the Project. I leave further action to someone else. Star Mississippi 19:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest no further action be taken until we get a response from Jamahiriya, or they return to disruptive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Should there be further discussion rather than immediate reversion of their edits? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Probably. Consensus can change, so it would be good to be sure it hasn't before reverting wholesale. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

User:ActualUkrainianCossack

Newly created sock of User:ActualCossack that has decided to return and restore all their POV edits from the old account that were reverted with the same edit summaries like "Learn to read"[184][185]. Now they are edit warring over their changes[186]. Mellk (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed. Star Mississippi 20:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Mellk (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You're more familiar - I assume there's a reason ActualCossack isn't blocked as well? Star Mississippi 20:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not aware of any other previous accounts but probably that account has not been blocked yet because I did not post a complaint on ANI. They made a series of edits and then disappeared (until now). Mellk (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If the original account was never blocked, this may not be a case of socking but rather an SPA misplacing the password to their original account. That said, given the comments and the at least open question of abuse of multiple accounts, I think we can call the indef warranted anyway (NOTHERE, DISRUPTIVE, CIV, EW--take your pick). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Frenchl

User:Frenchl is repeatedly and persistently making disruptive edits to articles pertaining about football (soccer) players. They are obsessed with the issue of players' nationality, and have made many edits against the consensus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (WPF) despite repeated warnings and pleads to stop. Firstly, Frenchl has been adding "dashed nationality" or "double nationality" to player articles, which is something that is against the consensus of WPF. An example of their addition of a double nationality can be found here for Ilyes Housni, and an example of their addition of dashed nationality can be found here for Skelly Alvero. The consensus of WPF regarding situations of footballers having dual citizenship is clear; players born in a specific country and who end up representing that country should be labelled as such (e.g., Zinedine Zidane is French, even if he has Algerian citizenship/nationality). The other consensus of WPF is that in a complex scenario, in which for example a player was born in one country and later represented another at international level, the consensus is to omit the nationality from the opening sentence and explain it either in the next sentence, or further down in the lede. This is to avoid using hyphens and "double nationality" as I say, which WPF has consisently stood against. As stated by GiantSnowman in this discussion, We have a standard way of editing - if a player is born in country X but plays for country Y, we do not include the nationality in the lede (opening sentence). This confirms what I am iterating the consensus that has been used for past years within this WikiProject.
Frenchl is doing everything in their power to not listen to both of the consensuses, and is making WP:POINTY edits against past consensus on nationality. Examples are here on Dembo Sylla, here on Mouaad Madri, here on Hamza Hafidi, here on Steven Nsimba, and just in the past 24 hours, on the articles of Ilyes Housni, Antony Robic, Syam Ben Youssef, Yann Boé-Kane, Skelly Alvero, Aïman Maurer, and Kévin Mouanga. I have had to go back and remove every disruptive edit on the nationality of all of these player articles. Many complaints were made against Frenchl in this discussion, first by GiantSnowman, regarding Frenchl's POINTY editing patterns against consensus on nationality. They have been repeatedly warned, as in this discussion on their talk page. Iggy the Swan and GiantSnowman both warned Frenchl about their disruptive editing on player articles regarding the subject of nationality, and this was done repeatedly by GiantSnowman in three different comments. However, as I mentioned just above, despite repetitive warnings, Frenchl has continued to violate the consensus long established on WPF, and has persistently disrupted many player articles, including many in the past 24 hours. According to this discussion started by Koncorde on GiantSnowman's talk page, Frenchl has also been making POINTY edits regarding specific wording around "representing a federation" despite persistent demands to stop disruptively editing Wikipedia.
I believe that a block is in order now for Frenchl, due to their repeated disregard for community guidelines and consensus, and repetitive disruptive editing. I would like to add that per WP:BLOCKP, this block is preventative based on the high likelihood of repetition of disruptive editing, as seen in the past 24 hours despite several demands and warnings. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

In 2019 a user has been banned by the community because "nationality isn't determined by who you play a sport for". And because "WP:RS,WP:OR and WP:BLP apply, regardless of what WP:FOOTY says." He was even told "You need to understand that nationality/citizenship is a legal status. It does not change merely because someone plays a sport for another country."

I think these rules should be reminded to WP:FOOTY members. As someone said yesterday, WPF consensus on nationality is "a stange rule - with no other profession does Wikipedia decide that we can obscure basic info because some of it kinda relates to their job". Frenchl (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm supporting a block for Frenchl, due to repeated violations against various discussions many established users have been involved in, including the two similar discussions on the WPF page whose text takes up at least half the page. By blocking, hopefully before the end of this month the two long discussions will have been archived by the bot but they keep on expanding partly due to further input by Frenchl. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we should encourage Frenchl to contribute to discussions more productively, since they are clearly willing to discuss edits. Before anyone suggests it, I don't say this because they have some similar views to mine, I say it because I think blocks should be a very last resort as a rule and there are better ways to deal with well-meaning editors - see my comments from the past few days in the above thread about HiLo, a user I almost always disagree with, for example. Kingsif (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, Kingsif, and I thank you for reminding the viewers that you and Frenchl have indeed been repeatedly backing each other up in a recent discussion about nationality. However, as you said, I am unsure if you are the best placed to oppose a block on Frenchl, as they are clearly making POINTY, disruptive edits repetitively despite warnings and pleads to stop. To @Frenchl:, we are not here to discuss WPF's consensus, but your bad behavior and disruptive editing, which you have not stopped. A block is appropriate, as Iggy and I see it. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

This must be said. Paul, I have not been backing up Frenchl in the slightest; I have asked them to stop making off-topic comments, and made it clear that they are seeking a different resolution that I felt was unhelpful in the recent discussion. Please do not continue to mischaracterise my comments there or try to discount my comments here. Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I agree with that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• From my superficial reading of the situation, I agree that Frenchl should stop making edits to footballers' nationalities until this matter (how to treat the subjects' nationalities) is resolved. Frenchl, if you believe the project's consensus goes against some other policy, you should bring this up to the community, possibly at VPP (though I think the linked thread from 2019 is related to a somewhat different issue). Editing articles in a way that contradicts what appears to be the current consensus is disruptive, especially as you are clearly aware that several editors disagree with you. I don't think sanctions are necessary right at this moment, as long as Frenchl stops with those edits. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: If the disruptive editing abruptly stops, then sanctions would not be necessary, but it would wise to analyze what Frenchl does over the next few days. However, I would be impressed; just in the past four-five days, Frenchl has made over 150 edits, of which over 75% were disruptive. I have spent the past 20 minutes reverting former disruptive edits that went unnoticed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from WikiEditWaste

@WikiEditWaste has consistently disrupted and vandalised numerous articles, refuses to engage in discussion, and is disseminating false information.

Examples:

1. From the Economy of Afghanistan page, they have continually disrupted edits made by other users, which have attempted to develop the article, and continues to spread false figures which have been shown to be disreputable. This diff shows the extent of disruption being done.
2. From the List of regions of Afghanistan by Human Development Index, where they had falsified HDI data which had to be corrected by other editors. This diff demonstrates this.
3. From the List of countries by GDP (nominal), where they had edited the article with false information to boost the position of Afghanistan. This was soon reverted by another editor. Diff.
4. From the 2021 Afghanistan–Iran clashes, where they painted a biased pro-Afghan narrative to the skirmishes to falsely claim an Afghan victory had occurred. Diff.
5. From List of countries by Human Development Index by region, where they had removed Afghanistan's position from the table showing it among the lowest in the OIC.
6. From Demographics of Afghanistan, where they had used poor quality sources to increase life expectancy figures, that were odds with the referenced sources from the WHO.

I have made a report previously to this board, which @WikiEditWaste did not engage with. They continue to make bad faith edits, especially in the Economy of Afghanistan page, which is now hindering the development of the article and causing immense disruption. LeoHoffman (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Diff for point 5. Diff for point 6. LeoHoffman (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thickrod6869

[187]. Should be self-explanatory why I'm reporting this (also rev-del). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)